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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true`, but the description adds specificity: 'permanently removes' and 'cannot be undone' reinforce the irreversibility. It also clarifies scope ('from the connected account'), which is not in the annotations. This goes beyond mere repetition of 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the destructive caveat is stated early, and the alternative is mentioned in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the requirement, the consequence, and the alternative. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the `id` parameter is already fully documented. The description merely restates 'Requires id' without adding new meaning, syntax, or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook by its ID') and clearly distinguishes itself from fetching via `get_unified_webhook`. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 states the required parameter (`Requires id`), the destructive consequence ('Permanently removes the record and cannot be undone'), and explicitly points to the alternative tool for fetching (`get_unified_webhook`). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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