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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not obligated to prove destructiveness; it goes further by naming the downstream consumers (CRM, Zap, follow-up sequence) that stop receiving events, which is genuinely useful context. It does not say whether deletion is reversible or requires elevated permissions.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The action and its effect come first, and the confirmation requirement follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

A one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and a destructive annotation needs exactly this: what it destroys, who is affected, and that user confirmation is required. No output schema exists, so omission of return-value detail is not a gap.

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 webhook_id description already tells the agent to use list-webhooks, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional constraint on webhook_id (scope, ownership, or format) beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3.

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 one of the account's webhooks') plus the concrete effect ('stops calling its URL'), making it trivially distinguishable from list-webhooks and update-webhook among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling, which is real usage guidance for a destructive op. The schema also routes the agent to list-webhooks for ID discovery, but the description itself does not name when deletion is or isn't appropriate.

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