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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the permission scope required, exactly what ceases (deliveries to that endpoint), the non-reversible nature of removal, and the error behavior for a missing ID. Nothing here contradicts the 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?

Four short sentences, all informative, with the action and effect front-loaded before prerequisites and side effects. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with a full output schema, the description covers authentication scope, what is destroyed, recovery implications, and the failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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% and the single parameter is documented as the webhook ID to remove. The description adds practical value beyond the schema by telling the agent where to source a valid ID via webhooks_list.

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 an organization webhook registration') plus the operational effect ('stopping future deliveries to that registered endpoint'). This clearly separates it from webhooks_set, webhooks_list, and webhook_test.

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 gives the prerequisite ('Requires owner/admin with deployments:admin') and routes the agent to the sibling needed to obtain the argument ('Use webhooks_list to find the ID'). It also warns that re-creating requires a new registration, which is the key when-not-what-you-want consideration.

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