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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact blast radius: new submissions rejected, in-flight accepted deliveries allowed to finish, queued events NOT cancelled, and irreversibility. This is precisely the post-annotation detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its hard precondition, then the consequences, then the alternative. Every clause (delivery finish behavior, queued-event caveat, irreversibility) carries distinct decision-relevant 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover outcomes, and it does: acceptance behavior for new vs in-flight vs queued events and irreversibility. Combined with annotations covering safety/idempotency and a 100%-documented 2-param schema, nothing material is missing for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both hookId and managementToken fully documented including patterns and provenance, so the schema carries this dimension. The description only echoes the token requirement ('with its management token') and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (permanently revoke this hook/destination) with the required authorization artifact (management token) and the owner-approval precondition. An agent can distinguish it from get_destination_status, verify_destination, and register_destination without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_destination_status first if you only need to inspect access,' naming the read-only alternative by name and the condition that selects it. It also states the operational precondition ('after explicit owner approval'), which is a real gating rule rather than generic advice.

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