Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent=true, destructive=false, not read-only), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: history and signing secret are retained, the action is reversible, and there is a server-side refusal precondition with a diagnostic tool. What is missing is auth/permission requirements, but the added context is substantial beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, no waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the retention/reversal and refusal details. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still covers the essentials for a single-param mutation: what changes, what is preserved, how to undo it, and when the call will fail. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single endpoint_key parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, syntax, or lookup detail beyond 'the webhook endpoint's key', making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Archive a webhook endpoint') and clarifies the mechanism ('by deactivating its active revision'), which cleanly separates it from the activate_* sibling. An agent can distinguish it from the other 70+ archive_*/activate_* tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly names the reverse operation ('activate_webhook_endpoint_revision brings it back') and the condition under which the call is refused ('while an active pipeline revision posts to it'), pointing to list_webhook_endpoint_uses for diagnosis. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are given, with a named alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.