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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: deliveries stop, and the operation is gated by a confirmation token, which tells the agent the first call is non-terminal and safe to inspect.

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, zero waste, and the destructive nature plus the confirmation flow are front-loaded. Nothing is padded or restated unnecessarily.

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 correctly explains what the first call returns (a summary and a confirmToken). It stops short of describing the final response or whether deletion is reversible, which would fully close the loop for a destructive operation.

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 67% (site and confirmToken documented, webhookId undocumented). The description restates the confirmToken flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; webhookId remains undocumented in both places, so baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Removes the webhook') plus the concrete effect ('stops all deliveries to it'), which is more than the name alone conveys. An agent can distinguish this from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_article, delete_site, delete_product) purely from the description.

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 explicit procedural guidance for the two-phase flow: first call without confirmToken to get a summary and token, second call with confirmToken to proceed. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer update_webhook over deletion, but the invocation sequence is unambiguous.

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