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

The description adds the context that the webhook must be 'registered,' implying it must already exist. It does not state consequences like irreversibility or permission requirements. Since annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description does not need to repeat that, but it could add more details about removal being permanent. With annotations present, the bar is lower, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Delete a registered webhook.' Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition. Optimal conciseness.

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 delete operation with one parameter, a clear description, and annotations indicating destructiveness, the description is complete. It specifies the action and the resource type. It does not detail return values or error behavior, but these are not typical for a delete tool and are absent from the schema/output schema. The low complexity and rich annotations reduce the need for more description.

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?

The schema has full coverage: webhook_id is described as 'The webhook ID to delete.' The description 'Delete a registered webhook' does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb and resource: 'Delete a registered webhook.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, update_webhook, and list_webhooks, which represent different operations on the same resource. The intent is unambiguous.

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 description implies usage: it is for removing a webhook that has already been registered. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'do not use to disable a webhook temporarily'). However, the name alone makes the purpose obvious, and sibling tools cover other operations, so the context is clear.

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