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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the cascade (delivery log removed), the external side effect ('nothing more is sent to the URL'), the human-approval gate tied to the confirmed flag, and the non-retry policy for writes. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius. Every sentence carries information, though 'or credit use' is a slightly confusing boilerplate fragment for a delete operation.

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?

Covers destruction scope, approval requirements, and retry behavior for a destructive mutation with no output schema. It stops short of stating irreversibility or error behavior for a missing/already-deleted webhook, which an agent would plausibly need.

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 50% and both id and confirmed already carry their own descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description reinforces the confirmed gating semantics but says nothing about the required path/id object, leaving the nested-structure requirement to the schema alone.

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 ('Delete webhook') and immediately clarifies scope by noting the delivery log is removed too. An agent can distinguish this from dealmachine_patch_webhooks_id or dealmachine_get_webhooks_id without consulting the 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 description gives a prerequisite ('Requires user approval and confirmed=true') but never says when to delete versus patch/disable a webhook, nor what happens on an unknown ID. Usage is implied by the verb rather than articulated against siblings.

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