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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further and enumerates the actual consequences beyond that flag: the event log is destroyed, future submissions stop being delivered to the url, and the signing secret is irrecoverably gone. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is deleted, then the permanence consequence, then the escape hatch to the non-destructive alternative. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 supplies the irreversibility, the side effects on delivery and the signing secret, and the safer alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description never mentions the webhookId parameter or its expected source, but schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents it ('Webhook ID from formWebhook_list or formWebhook_create'). With only one fully-documented parameter, the baseline 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 plus resource ('Delete a form webhook') and immediately scopes it ('and its event log'). This clearly separates it from the sibling webhook tools (create/list/update/test) without needing 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'To stop delivery temporarily use formWebhook_update({ enabled: false }).' This is a concrete when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-something-else rule, including the exact sibling call and parameter.

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