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

Annotations already carry destructive and idempotent flags, but the description adds vital context: it archives the webhook, that events stop, and that the deletion cannot be undone through the API. It also notes the required 'write scope', providing security-relevant information that is not present in the structured 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?

Everything is captured in two concise sentences with no filler. The core outcome ('receives no more events') is front-loaded, followed by the irreversible caution and user confirmation, making every word earn its place.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the action, the result, the irreversibility, the permission, and the safety step required before invocation. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (webhookId), including UUID format and pattern. The tool description adds only a passing mention of {id} in the path, which is useful but does not materially enrich the meaning beyond the schema's own definition.

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 a specific action verb ('Delete (archive)') on a concrete resource ('webhook') and states the immediate effect: it no longer receives events. It also includes the HTTP method and scope, making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like update_webhook, enable_webhook, or get_webhook.

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?

It clearly warns that the action is irreversible and instructs to confirm with the user first, which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of a soft-disable via update_webhook, so it misses the remainder of the 'vs alternatives' guidance.

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