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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: immediate cessation of delivery, irreversibility, server-side verification, and the exact refusal message for unknown/deleted webhooks (consistent with idempotency). This is rich behavioral disclosure, not repetition.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and its effect, then the safety workflow, then verification. It is fairly long but nearly every clause carries actionable information; only the trailing verification sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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 so return values need not be explained. The description covers the destructive consequence, irreversibility, the preview/confirm protocol, and error behavior — everything an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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% and the confirm parameter is already well documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless reinforces the semantics by framing confirm as the gate between a read-only preview and the real deletion, adding workflow meaning beyond the field text.

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 ("Removes a webhook subscription") and its immediate effect. It clearly distinguishes itself from create_webhook and list_webhooks, which are the natural siblings an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-phase workflow (call without confirm for a preview, then with confirm:true after user agreement) and names the alternative (create_webhook to recreate). Nothing about when/when-not to use it is left to inference.

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