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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals the destructive nature. The description adds that it disables a webhook already registered, implying an existing resource, but does not detail reversibility or other side effects.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and efficiently communicates the core function.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not mention expected return values or failure modes, which would be useful given no output schema exists. The simplicity of the operation reduces the need for extensive documentation, but there is still a gap.

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% with the parameter description 'ID do webhook a desativar'. The tool description restates 'pelo ID', providing no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the specific verb 'Desativa' (deactivates) with the resource 'webhook' and specifies 'pelo ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe_webhook (creation) and listar_webhooks (listing).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites (e.g., the webhook must exist) or conditions for non-use mentioned. The only implicit context is the tool name itself.

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