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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: it returns an approval URL, no change occurs until human approval, and the same requestId/details must be reused to fetch results. This explains the destructive nature is deferred and not immediate, and illustrates the idempotent workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and effect, the immediate return, the approval requirement, and the result retrieval method. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with an approval workflow, the description covers the essential steps: what happens (revoke), the immediate response (approval URL), the prerequisite (human approval), and how to follow up (reuse requestId/details). It does not detail the return result structure, but that is handled by the output schema. It also omits explicit mention of required parameters, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and follow through.

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 compensate. It mentions 'requestId' and 'details' in the reuse guidance, implying they are used for idempotency and result retrieval, but does not explain their structure or purpose beyond that. The schema itself provides a description for 'id' (owned resource UUID, not publicId), adding some context. Overall, the description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('one owned webhook endpoint'), and clarifies the outcome ('future notifications to it stop'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like auraspay_webhook_create (creation), auraspay_webhooks_list (listing), and auraspay_webhook_test (testing), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to revoke a webhook) and important procedural guidance ('Reuse the identical requestId and details to retrieve the result'). However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools when not to use this one, nor does it mention that creation or listing should be handled by siblings. The usage context is clear but not exhaustive, missing explicit exclusions.

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