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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further with the immediate delivery cutoff, irreversibility, the exact success payload, and named failure modes not_found and insufficient_scope. That is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive effect, then usage routing, then return/error contract — every sentence earns its place. Slightly denser than needed but no waste worth cutting.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the two error conditions, and the mutation risk is fully covered. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema ('UUID of the webhook, from list_webhooks'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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 and resource ('Delete a webhook endpoint') and immediately qualifies scope with 'deliveries stop immediately. Irreversible.' This clearly separates it from sibling update_webhook and the other delete_* tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use when the endpoint is retired') plus an explicit alternative and its condition: 'To pause temporarily use update_webhook with is_enabled=false instead.' This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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