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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds valuable nuance beyond that: it specifies that only the push stops, messages still arrive, and they remain readable through wa_list_messages. This clarifies the exact scope of the destructive action and prevents agents from assuming messages are lost.

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, each essential and front-loaded: the first states the primary action, the second clarifies the consequence. There is no filler or redundant 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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what happens, what does not happen, and where to still access messages. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description naturally cannot add parameter meaning. The empty schema is fully covered, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description makes no claims about inputs, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Stop delivering') and resource ('inbound messages to the configured endpoint'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like wa_set_webhook or wa_enable_webhook. It also adds a clarifying contrast ('Messages keep arriving... only the push stops') that reinforces its unique purpose.

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 gives clear context: it is used to stop push delivery while preserving message availability for retrieval via wa_list_messages. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the behavioral tradeoff is strongly implied by the second sentence.

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