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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely extra context: auth is required, the response shape is {id, deleted:true}, and the specific failure mode is 404 webhook_not_found for a missing or foreign id.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and answerable in a glance. The sentence 'This removes the hook.' is largely redundant with the opening clause, a small amount of waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers when to call it, the auth requirement, the success return, and the specific error case, while annotations carry the safety and idempotency hints. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100% on the single parameter, so the schema already documents webhook_id and its wh_ prefix format. The description repeats 'webhook_id (required)' and adds only the account-scoping nuance that an id belonging to another account yields 404, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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 and resource: 'a webhook should stop receiving events and be removed', naming the exact object acted on. It is clear against register_webhook/update_webhook/list_webhooks by name, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely related cooper_delete_event_consumer and cooper_delete_event_subscription siblings.

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 an explicit usage condition - use it when a webhook should stop receiving events and be removed - which tells the agent the intended moment to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. update_webhook to merely disable, or deleting an event subscription instead) or stating when not to use it.

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