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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: event_id deduplication, rechecking the current endpoint revision, required webhook.manage scope, tenant/agent/Live-Sandbox authorization, and the bounded control plane. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description layers on auth, concurrency, and dedup semantics.

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?

The retry action and precondition are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (boundaries, auth, idempotency, docs). It is denser and longer than strictly minimal, but no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: authorization scope, concurrency protection via revisions, dedup behavior, exclusions, and a docs link. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's per-field text: idempotency_key reuse after an uncertain mutation and the revision recheck semantics tied to expected_revision. These are operational nuances the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource (retry a failed webhook delivery) plus its precondition ('after correcting the receiver') and an explicit boundary ('Does not replay successful deliveries'). An agent can distinguish it from list_webhook_deliveries or test_webhook_endpoint 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?

Gives clear when-to-use ('after correcting the receiver') and when-not ('Does not replay successful deliveries') guidance, plus an idempotency retry condition for uncertain mutations. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling to use for other cases, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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