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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about the failure state that caused the webhook to be disabled, but it does not explain what re-enabling changes, whether failure counters reset, or what happens if the webhook is already enabled.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and immediately explains the context in which it applies.

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?

The annotations cover the safety profile and idempotency, and no output schema exists. However, the description omits the organization scope and the meaning of the id parameter, leaving gaps for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 description does not mention either parameter. The schema documents orgId as the organization ID from org_list but leaves id undocumented. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying that id is the webhook endpoint ID, but it does not.

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: re-enabling a webhook endpoint that was switched off after repeated failures. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this organization-scoped tool from the sibling webhook_enable tool.

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?

The phrase "switched off after repeated failures" implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as webhook_enable for non-organization webhooks.

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