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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: deliveries stop and delivery history is dropped, making the full destructive impact explicit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. The key facts—permanence, scope, and consequences—are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool with destructive annotation, the description is complete: it states what is removed, what stops, and what is dropped. No critical gaps remain.

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 endpoint_id parameter already has a clear description referencing list_webhook_endpoints. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('permanently remove') and resource ('webhook endpoint') with clear scope ('from the calling account'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_webhook_endpoint, list_webhook_endpoints, and rotate_webhook_secret.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this when you need to permanently remove a webhook endpoint, and the endpoint_id comes from list_webhook_endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous given the sibling tool names.

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