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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds 'owner-scoped', which hints at an authorization boundary, but says nothing about whether revoke is reversible, whether paused subscriptions can be resumed, or what happens to in-flight deliveries — meaningful gaps for a status-mutation tool that includes a revoke option.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a mutation tool with two undocumented parameters and an enum of three new states.

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 write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits status-transition rules (can a revoked subscription be reactivated?), permission requirements, and the effect of each status. An agent has to guess at the allowed lifecycle.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The verbs loosely map to the status enum values (pause→paused, resume→active, revoke→revoked), but subscriptionKey is entirely unexplained and no parameter is named. This falls well short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 specific verbs (pause, resume, revoke) acting on a clearly named resource (owner-scoped webhook subscription). An agent can distinguish it from create_webhook, list_webhooks, rotate_webhook_secret, and replay_webhook_delivery by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by the operation verbs but never stated: there is no 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as rotate_webhook_secret or send_webhook_test. Adequate only at the minimum-viable level.

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