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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deliveries pause/resume without changing endpoint/secret, messages continue arriving while paused, and they stay readable via wa_list_messages. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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, zero filler. The core action and key constraint ('WITHOUT changing the endpoint or its signing secret') are front-loaded, followed by a concise usage rationale and expectation-setting. 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 simple boolean-toggle tool, the description covers the core behavior, the temporary-use case, the alternative to avoid, and the post-pause state. With an output schema present and annotations supplying safety/idempotency, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the enabled parameter clearly explained and reason described as an optional console note. The description itself does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Pause or resume delivery to the configured webhook', naming a specific verb and resource with a clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from deleting/re-creating by noting the endpoint and signing secret are preserved, which separates it from wa_delete_webhook and wa_set_webhook.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to stop deliveries temporarily'. It also gives the reason to avoid an alternative ('deleting and re-creating the webhook would issue a new secret') and tells what to expect while paused, including that messages remain readable with wa_list_messages.

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