remove_hook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates untouched surfaces (secret values, audit log, env states) and nuances the idempotency hint by clarifying an already-absent id returns not-found rather than partial work, plus states the success return string.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then alternatives, then scope guarantees. Every sentence carries information, though the 'idempotent in spirit' clause is slightly wordy.

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 single-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the blast radius, the alternative tools, idempotency behavior, and the success return value. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single param already documents its origin (register_hook / list_hooks, opaque string). The description's 'registry id' phrasing reinforces but does not extend that meaning, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Detach a single lifecycle hook by its registry id') plus the effect ('so it stops firing'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings delete_secret and tunnel_destroy, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('retire a specific webhook/command without touching any secrets') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right choice.

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