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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about irreversibility of the removal, authorization required to remove a hook, or the no-op behavior on repeat calls that idempotency implies.

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?

A single short sentence with the destructive action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but structurally it is clean.

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, open-world mutation with two undocumented credential-like parameters and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent has no way to know what 'key' and 'proof' require, what permissions are needed, or what result to expect after removing the hook.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'This channel' weakly implies that 'id' is a channel identifier, but 'key' and 'proof' — presumably credentials proving ownership of the hook — are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('webhook') scoped to 'this channel', which lets an agent identify it as the inverse of channel_hook_set without opening the schema. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'the webhook you set' hints that channel_hook_set must have run first, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of what to do if no webhook exists. An agent can guess the context but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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