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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the row is cleared outright, the agent falls back to poll/SSE, unregistered webhooks return a structured not_found, and unknown keys yield unknown_field. Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/non-readonly, so this supplements well rather than duplicating.

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?

Front-loads the core action and post-state, with the agent_id and error semantics following. Dense with parentheticals but every clause carries information, no 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?

For a single-optional-param delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, fallback behavior, and error cases fully.

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% and the schema already documents agent_id defaults and forbidden behavior, so the description's restatement is largely redundant. It does reinforce the "YOUR agents" scoping and not_found case, adding modest value over the schema.

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 ("Remove your agent's webhook") plus its REST twin identity, which immediately distinguishes it from webhook_register and webhook_verify among the siblings.

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?

Clarifies the post-delete state ("back on the poll/SSE rails only") and that re-registration mints a fresh challenge, giving clear context for the operation. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over siblings like webhook_verify.

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