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

Going beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses the concrete side effect that 'Pending deliveries to it are dropped' and that user confirmation is expected. It still doesn't state whether removal is reversible or what the response looks like, but it adds real behavioral value over the annotations.

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 core action and ending with the safety instruction. No filler, nothing wasted.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, side effect, and caution. Only marginal gaps remain, such as reversibility or how to restore a webhook.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including its source ('Webhook id from swop_list_webhooks'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Stop sending events to one of the linked account's webhook URLs'), which is unambiguous and lets an agent distinguish it from swop_list_webhooks, swop_register_webhook, and swop_test_webhook without opening schemas.

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 line 'Confirm with the user first' gives concrete usage guidance for a destructive operation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., re-adding via swop_register_webhook), but the context of use is clear.

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