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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: auth requirement, the return shape {id, deleted:true}, and the 404 webhook_not_found failure mode including the cross-account ownership case. This enriches the destructive/idempotent hints the annotations already provide.

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?

Front-loads the trigger, then packs auth, input, return, and error info efficiently. Mild redundancy between 'be removed' and 'This removes the hook,' but overall tight and well ordered.

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 supplies the return value, auth needs, and the key failure mode. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'webhook_id (required)' is redundant. The id-format detail ('wh_…') lives in the schema, not the description, so no value is added over structured data.

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 (delete/remove) and resource (webhook) clearly: 'when a webhook should stop receiving events and be removed.' An agent can distinguish this destructive operation from register/update/rotate siblings, though it doesn't name those alternatives 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when a webhook should stop receiving events and be removed'), which is enough context to select the tool. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or route to sibling tools like cooper_update_webhook or cooper_list_webhooks.

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