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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds what those hints cannot: smart links are detached yet retain their `ref`, and a POS connection using the endpoint is left without a channel. It also discloses the required admin role and the confirmation expectation.

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 sentence packed with the operation, its cascade effects, the auth requirement, and the confirmation rule, with the destructive action front-loaded. No clause 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, side effects on dependent resources, permission requirements, and user-confirmation expectations. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (orgId, endpointId) are fully documented in the schema, including where to source each id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Remove a webhook endpoint") and immediately scopes the operation's blast radius. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_webhook_endpoint and create_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?

It states a hard prerequisite ("Requires the admin role") and an interaction rule ("Confirm with the user before calling this"), which is concrete guidance beyond a bare purpose statement. It stops short of naming an alternative for non-destructive edits, so it lacks explicit when-not routing.

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