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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation—it does not say whether deletion is permanent, what happens to queued deliveries, or what errors occur for an invalid id.

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 short sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Inputs:' clause is somewhat redundant with a 100%-documented schema, but it is brief and does not obscure the main point.

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 single-object delete with complete schema coverage and rich safety annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any mention of irreversibility, error behavior for a malformed or missing id, and post-deletion state, which would be useful for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and token) are already fully documented in the schema, including the whk_ prefix and the optional Authorization fallback. The description merely echoes the id format, adding no meaning beyond the schema; 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?

The description states a specific verb (Deletes) and resource (one webhook), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_site or revoke_token. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives such as revoke_token or explain its relationship to list_webhooks.

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 delete a webhook versus revoking a token or other cleanup operations, and no note about needing to find the id via list_webhooks first. The user is left to infer usage entirely from the verb.

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