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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses permanence, effect on active/auto-disabled webhooks, auth requirement (owner_key), and the new secret on re-registration. It lacks details on idempotency or error behavior, but is otherwise transparent about side effects.

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 well-structured sentences: the first states the core purpose and effect, the second covers auth and the alternative path. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what happens, auth constraints, and recovery via re-registration. It doesn't mention whether existing delivery logs are removed or what happens on failure, but these are minor gaps given the clear core behavior.

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 each parameter already has a detailed description, including the api_key distinction between owner and sub-key. The description adds only a reinforcement of the owner_key requirement, which is already present in the schema, so no significant extra value.

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 clearly states the action (permanently remove a registered webhook), the resource (webhook), and the outcome (no further events delivered). It distinguishes from siblings like aanet_register_webhook and aanet_list_webhooks by focusing on deletion.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: permanent removal with no pause option, and names the alternative (delete and re-register with aanet_register_webhook) for temporary needs. It also specifies the owner_key requirement, guiding correct invocation.

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