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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is a mutating action; it does not state whether disabling is reversible, whether the webhook must already exist, whether it affects ongoing deliveries, or what permissions are required.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of being terse, but it still communicates the primary purpose efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks context about side effects, reversibility, and expected result, so the definition is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation burden adequately.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Disable a webhook', so the agent can identify the core operation. It is distinct from sibling webhook tools like create, get, deliveries, and list, although it does not add any detail about scope or consequences.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only usage signal is the implicit meaning of the verb 'disble', which is too weak to count as real guidance.

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