Remove your webhook endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary effect (stops delivery) and reassures that orders are unaffected, also mentioning the fallback polling method. This is transparent for a simple mutation, though it does not state whether the deletion is permanent or reversible. Still, it covers the key behavioral impact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by the key consequence. No filler words, every word earns its place. This is a model of concise tool documentation.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and points to the alternative (get_order). It could add a note that the webhook is permanently removed or that it must be recreated via set_webhook, but that is a minor omission. The description is adequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to add. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds value by explaining the behavioral outcome, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Stops webhook delivery') and the resource (webhook). It is distinct from siblings like get_webhook, set_webhook, and test_webhook, making it obvious which tool to pick. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides a clear consequence ('Orders are unaffected; you fall back to polling get_order'), which implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and what to do instead. However, it does not explicitly state a condition like 'use when you no longer want webhooks' or mention alternatives like set_webhook for replacement. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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