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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one useful scoping fact (other fields are left untouched), but says nothing about consequences of disabling (e.g. deliveries stop) or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping clause is the only thing worth saying and it is stated once.

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 toggle with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description is essentially complete. The only mild gap is not stating the practical effect of disabling (halting webhook deliveries), which the destructiveHint gestures at but does not explain.

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% — both 'active' (true/false semantics) and 'webhookId' are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource ('turn a webhook on or off') that clearly identifies a state-toggle operation rather than a full edit. The phrase 'without touching the rest of its definition' implicitly distances it from glpi_update_webhook, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader must infer that this is the narrow tool to use when only the active flag should change, versus glpi_update_webhook for broader edits. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisite (e.g. webhook must already exist) is stated.

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