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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the description's job is to add context; it does by stating that events stop immediately (effect timing) and that only webhooks registered by the calling key are removable (ownership/auth scoping). It stops short of saying the removal cannot be undone or what an invalid/foreign id returns.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the ownership scope and immediate-effect warning are both front-loaded and each clause carries load-bearing information.

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 single-parameter mutation whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description supplies enough: what it targets, how to get the id, and when the effect lands. Only error semantics for a missing or foreign id are absent, a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning, and it does by naming the source of webhook_id ('from list_event_webhooks'). It does not restate the UUID format, which the schema already encodes.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('one webhook') and narrows scope to 'this key registered', which an agent can distinguish from create_event_webhook and list_event_webhooks without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_event_webhooks to obtain the webhook_id, giving clear preconditions for invocation. It does not state what to do when the id is unknown or already deleted, but no plausible alternative tool competes for this action.

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