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

The annotations already declare that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds useful context about why a webhook would need re-enabling, but it does not describe permissions, side effects, or what happens to delivery history. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately supplies the relevant context.

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 simple mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and rationale. However, it leaves the sole parameter undocumented and does not address the org-level sibling tool, so it is only minimally complete.

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 tool has one required parameter, 'id', and the schema provides 0% description coverage. The description never mentions the identifier or clarifies what kind of ID is expected. For a one-parameter tool, the description should at least confirm that the ID is the webhook endpoint identifier.

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-enable a webhook endpoint. It also explains the typical prior state, 'switched off after repeated failures,' which helps an agent understand the operation. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling org_webhook_enable, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'that was switched off after repeated failures' implies when this tool should be used, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as org_webhook_enable. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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