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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a destructive write, so the baseline is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavioral information beyond the annotations: the previous URL is invalidated, meaning existing integrations will break immediately. It stops short of covering reversibility, whether in-flight deliveries are dropped, or whether the new secret is returned.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the irreversible consequence is placed right after the action. It is close to over-compressed for a destructive tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, annotation-flagged mutation with no output schema and a fully undocumented parameter, the description should clarify what 'id' refers to and what the caller receives. It conveys only the headline effect, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently without inspecting the sibling list or trial and error.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The agent cannot tell from either source whether 'id' is the webhook identifier or the parent form identifier, which is a consequential ambiguity for a destructive operation. With only one parameter the gap is narrow, so this lands at the baseline rather than lower.

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 ('Remplacer') plus the consequence ('invalider l'ancienne URL'), which makes the rotation semantics explicit. However, the resource is only implicit ('le secret'), relying on the tool name for the agent to know it is a form webhook secret, and there is no differentiation from update_form_webhook or rotate_flow_endpoint.

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 rotate versus calling update_form_webhook, who may do it, or what precondition exists. The adverb 'immédiatement' hints at urgency but does not tell the agent under which circumstances this tool should be selected over its siblings.

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