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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies permission requirements, operational impact ('stopping future deliveries'), irreversibility ('adding it again requires a new registration'), and error semantics for a missing ID. These details go well beyond the destructive and non-idempotent hints already present in annotations.

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?

The description is four compact sentences, front-loads the core action, then covers permissions, alternatives, and consequences. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the destructive annotations, rich output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers safety, permissions, alternatives, consequences, and error behavior, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents the single webhookId parameter. The description mentions finding the ID and missing-ID errors but does not add format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an organization webhook registration'), including its scope and effect. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming webhooks_list and webhooks_set as alternatives for related tasks.

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 gives clear when-to-use context, prerequisite permissions ('Requires owner/admin with deployments:admin'), and explicit sibling alternatives for finding the ID or registering a webhook. This leaves little for an agent to infer.

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