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

Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive and not read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: after calling, future events are delivered via polling rather than the webhook URL. It does not discuss reversibility or exact deletion semantics, but the key behavioral consequence is disclosed.

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 deliver the core action and the key fallback behavior without unnecessary detail. Every word 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?

This is a simple one-parameter destructive action with annotations already covering its safety profile. The description covers the immediate effect and the alternative delivery behavior. It could mention re-enabling via set_webhook, but that is not essential 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 0%, so the description must clarify the worker_id parameter's role. It does so by referring to 'this worker's webhook URL,' tying the single parameter to the affected resource. The schema supplies the uuid format, so no additional syntax explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Stop pushing events') with a clear resource ('this worker's webhook URL'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like set_webhook, get_webhook, 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 phrase 'Future events fall back to polling' provides clear context: this tool is appropriate when push delivery should stop but event availability should continue through polling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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