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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence that a disabled webhook halts event notifications until re-enabled, which is real value beyond the flags. There is a minor tension: the description implies confirm is needed specifically for pausing, while the schema says confirm must be true for any change.

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 action and immediately followed by the consequence and the confirm protocol. The clause 'needs webhook_id and active' is redundant with the schema's required array and could be dropped without loss.

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-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects and the confirm gate well. However, it never says what the preview returns or how large an effect to show the user, which matters because the agent must relay that preview before confirming.

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%, so parameters are already documented, yet the description adds the sequencing semantics of confirm (preview first, then confirm) and ties active:false to that flow, which the schema states only generically. The rest (webhook_id, active) is repetition of the required-field list.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource ('Enable or disable a webhook'), which separates it from update_webhook, delete_webhook and toggle_transactional_webhook by implication. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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 states required inputs and, crucially, the two-step preview/confirm protocol for pausing ('needs confirm: true after a preview'), which is operational guidance an agent could not infer from the name. It stops short of saying when to choose this over update_webhook or delete_webhook, so no true alternatives routing is given.

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