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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the blast radius: stored records are removed, intake and delivery stop, and queued retries are cancelled. It does not address re-invocation behavior or irreversibility explicitly, which is the main remaining gap given the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the destructive scope, the second states the usage condition. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, single-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Missing only practical guidance on sourcing the sourceId and confirmation of irreversibility.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (sourceId) is documented nowhere. The description's phrase "that source" gestures at the target but adds no meaning about the identifier's format or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_sources), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete an incoming webhook source") and enumerates the exact scope of the deletion: stored records, intake, delivery, and queued retries. This clearly separates it from sibling delete_endpoint (different resource) even though the tool name 'archive_source' might otherwise suggest a softer, reversible operation.

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?

"Use only when the user intends to remove that source" gives an explicit precondition that guards against accidental destructive invocation, and the destructive scope reinforces caution. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., delete_endpoint, cancel_queued_retries) or what to do instead when the intent is softer.

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