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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the old secret stops verifying immediately, that deliveries will be rejected until a human deploys the new secret, and that the new secret is returned exactly once. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling a destructive rotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'Destructive:' marker so the risk is the first thing read. Every sentence adds distinct operational information with no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: trigger semantics, the immediate breakage window, and the one-time return of the new secret. No material gap remains.

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 single webhook_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_webhooks. The description adds no parameter detail, so the schema carries the full burden; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: issuing a new signing secret for a webhook. An agent can tell this apart from update_webhook or create_webhook without opening schemas, since the secret-rotation semantics are named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the consequence description ('the old secret stops verifying immediately'), which tells the agent this is a deliberate rotation action. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like update_webhook or test_webhook, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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