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

The annotations already flag the operation as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: queued or retried deliveries may still complete, and recreating the webhook issues a new secret. This goes well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core removal behavior first, followed by the queued-delivery exception and the re-creation secret side effect. Every sentence adds distinct information and none is padding.

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 two-parameter, well-documented mutation with comprehensive annotations, the description covers the meaningful behavioral edge cases and side effects. No output schema exists, but nothing necessary for correct invocation 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%, with form_id and webhook_id already described and sourced from list_forms/list_webhooks. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Removes') and names the webhook resource, and it clarifies the operational consequence ('no later submission is delivered to it'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling webhook tools such as update_webhook, so it stops one step short of full differentiation.

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 wording implies the tool is for permanently stopping future deliveries to a webhook, so an agent can infer a reasonable use case. However, it does not state when to prefer this over update_webhook or any alternative, and it gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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