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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them by stating the post-deletion consequence: notifications continue via push, mail and ontouser_notification_index, meaning the agent's notification path is not broken. It still omits permission requirements and whether the deletion is confirmable/undoable.

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 operative German sentence and the consequence sentence are front-loaded and earn their place. The appended "| EN: webhook, unsubscribe, delete" keyword tag is search metadata rather than useful instruction, which is the only wasted element.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the essentials. However, for a destructive tool it leaves out the scope of what is deleted (the authenticated user's webhook only?) and any permission or confirmation requirement, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument operation on the caller's own webhook configuration, though it never states which webhook (user vs. team scope) is removed.

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?

"Notification-Webhook entfernen" gives a specific verb (entfernen) and resource (notification webhook), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools ontouser_webhook_save, _show and _test. It does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast itself against them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 note that afterwards only push, mail and ontouser_notification_index remain hints that this tool is for turning off webhook-based delivery rather than the other channels. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites such as owning the webhook.

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