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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: disabling the webhook silently downgrades the worker to polling for future events. It does not clarify whether the webhook URL itself is removed or just deactivated, nor whether the change is reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by a reference link. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter tool with an existing output-free surface and annotations that carry the destructive flag, the description covers the key behavioral consequence. Minor gaps remain around reversibility/authentication needed to invoke it.

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?

One required parameter (worker_id) with 0% schema description coverage, though the schema itself carries a full UUID format and pattern. The phrase 'this worker's webhook URL' weakly implies worker_id identifies the target, but no explicit parameter meaning, format guidance, or error behavior is added in the description.

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?

Names a specific action and target: 'Stop pushing events to this worker's webhook URL.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from set_webhook (configure), get_webhook (read), and rotate_webhook_secret (rotate credentials) 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?

The consequence 'Future events fall back to polling' implies when this tool is appropriate, but the description never states the use condition explicitly nor names an alternative (e.g., set_webhook to reconfigure instead of disabling). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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