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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no statement about irreversibility, what happens to pending deliveries, or required auth/scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a destructive five-parameter tool.

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 mutation with five parameters at 40% description coverage, no output schema, and a required idempotency_key whose semantics are unexplained, this description leaves significant gaps. The annotations cover safety but not the operational detail an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 40%, and the description contributes just 'by ID', which the schema already conveys via the id property. The required idempotency_key has no explanation of its role (uniqueness, replay behavior), and brand_id is undocumented in both places, so the description 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 gives a specific verb (Delete) and resource (webhook subscription) plus the keying parameter (by ID), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like aidelly_create_webhook or aidelly_list_webhooks, though the verb makes the distinction obvious from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note that deletion is permanent or how to find a webhook id (e.g., via aidelly_list_webhooks). The agent gets only the operation name.

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