Revoke the previous webhook endpoint secret

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that webhook response secrets are redacted and that new signing secrets are written only to a private local file, which tells the agent what it will and will not get back. The 'may affect delivery, audience membership, published data' clause is generic boilerplate for a secret revocation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, with no filler. The middle sentence about blast radius is broad boilerplate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return-side handling of secrets (redaction, private local file). Combined with the confirm prerequisite, an agent has enough to call this safely; only the relationship to rotate_webhook_secret is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a requirement the schema does not enforce: confirm is not in the required array, yet the description states confirm=true is mandatory, and it warns to set it only for this exact action. That is meaningful semantics beyond the structured fields.

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specific verb and resource (revoke the previous webhook endpoint secret), and the word 'previous' implies it acts on a superseded secret rather than the active one. It does not, however, explicitly name rotate_webhook_secret or delete_webhook_endpoint, both of which live in the sibling list and could be confused with this action.

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 one concrete prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true'), which is genuine usage guidance, but offers no when-to-use versus rotate_webhook_secret or delete_webhook_endpoint, and no statement of when revocation is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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