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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and effect ('Unmap', 'stop a webhook from firing') but does not describe side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. Adequate but not detailed.

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 compact: a one-sentence action followed by a focused 'Use when' bullet. Every sentence contributes value and the key verb is front-loaded.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and use case. It is slightly incomplete in not steering agents away from similar webhook-related tools, but not severely so.

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%, so the schema already explains all four parameters, including the allowed resource_type values. The description adds little beyond the schema; the phrase 'specific job or monitor' lightly reinforces the parameter semantics but omits monitor_group.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Unmap a resource from a webhook') and clarifies the intended outcome: 'stop a webhook from firing for a specific job or monitor.' It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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?

A dedicated 'Use when' section provides a concrete condition: stopping a webhook from firing for a specific job or monitor. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so it stops short of a 5.

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