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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the critical operational fact that omitting hook_id triggers a bulk removal of every webhook for the family, plus the downstream effect that nudges stop being delivered. This scope-of-destruction detail is genuinely beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Two sentences with zero padding. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the consequence of removal.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is removed and the blast radius of the omitted-parameter case. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the removal is reversible or returns a confirmation, which would round it out further.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of hook_id, and it does: it explains that the parameter is an id and that its omission (default null) means remove-all. The dual-mode semantics are clear, though no format or example of a valid id is given.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('nudge webhook'), and goes further by spelling out the two operating modes: by id, or every webhook for the family if hook_id is omitted. An agent can distinguish this from subscribe_nudges and get_nudges without opening any 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?

The description gives clear context for use (removing a previously registered webhook) and the condition that selects each behavior (omit hook_id to remove all). It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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