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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions evidence preservation, but omits critical details: whether disabling is reversible, whether deliveries stop immediately, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and its key differentiator. It avoids waste but may be too terse; still, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify whether the disable action is reversible, what happens to in-flight or future deliveries, or any implications for the webhook's lifecycle. An agent would need additional information to use it safely.

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%, with both parameters described ('Webhook endpoint ID' and 'Active organization ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 clear verb ('Disable') and resource ('a webhook'), and distinguishes this from deletion by noting it preserves delivery evidence. It is specific enough to differentiate from a delete operation, though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.

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 implies a use case (keep evidence while disabling) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like delete or update. No exclusions or explicit context about when not to use it are provided.

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