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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral detail: removal is permanent, deliveries stop, and delivery history is dropped. This fully warns the agent about the consequences and scope before invocation.

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 convey purpose, scope, side effects, and irreversibility with no filler. The most important qualifier ('permanently') is front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with annotations, the description covers what, scope, and consequences. The only minor omission is the response shape (e.g., success status or deleted endpoint), but this is not essential for a simple delete invocation.

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 only parameter, endpoint_id, is already described in the schema with source, type, and format. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('one webhook endpoint') and adds that it is permanent and scoped to the calling account. This clearly distinguishes deletion from sibling tools 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 intended use is apparent: call this when you need to stop deliveries and permanently delete an endpoint. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive, one-shot purpose is clearly conveyed and no other sibling tool provides this capability.

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