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 the response shape ({ id, success }) and the environment-variable fallback for targeting, which goes beyond the annotations, though it omits irreversibility/confirmation guidance.

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, no filler: action and scope first, then return value, then targeting rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent semantics, so the description is nearly sufficient for a two-parameter delete. The one gap is that it does not reconcile its 'otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID' defaulting language with the schema's requirement that campaignId be passed.

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 50% (campaignId documented, webhookId bare), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID fallback for campaignId, but it also implies campaignId is optional while the schema marks it required, which muddies rather than clarifies the parameter contract.

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 ('Remove a webhook from your GrowSurf program') and scopes it by id, which clearly separates it from list_campaign_webhooks, create_campaign_webhook, update_campaign_webhook, and test_campaign_webhook. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

It explains which program the call targets (explicit campaignId vs GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID fallback), which is useful context, but it never states when to use this tool versus its webhook siblings or any prerequisite such as resolving a webhook id first. Usage is implied by the name rather than guided.

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