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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds value by stating the removal is permanent and irreversible. It omits other behavioral context an agent might want (auth requirements, whether dependent triggers are cascaded), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the required parameter, then the irreversibility warning, then the alternative. No sentence is filler.

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 delete tool with no output schema and annotations that already convey the safety profile, the description covers action, required input, irreversibility, and the nearest alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents `id` (including the minLength: 1 constraint). The description's 'Requires `id`' merely restates the required field and adds no format or sourcing guidance, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (webhook) with scope ('by its ID from the connected account'), which cleanly separates it from create_unified_webhook, update_unified_webhook, and get_unified_webhook without needing schema inspection.

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 routes the agent to `get_unified_webhook` when it wants to fetch rather than remove, which is the most likely confusion given the near-identical sibling names. It stops short of stating when deletion is inappropriate (e.g., use update_unified_webhook to disable instead), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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