Revoke the previous webhook endpoint secret

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the warning that it 'May affect delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state,' the confirm=true requirement, and the crucial note that 'webhook response secrets are redacted; new signing secrets are saved only to a private local file.' This tells the agent how to handle secret retrieval, which annotations do not cover.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by critical warnings. It is efficient and every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter by combining the confirm requirement with the earlier warning.

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 destructive, non-idempotent secret-revocation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risks (irreversible state, affected delivery) and the confirm requirement. It also explains where new secrets go, which is important for correct agent behavior. It does not explain the return value (none), but that is acceptable without an output schema. The main gap is the lack of explicit when-to-use guidance relative to rotate_webhook_secret.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the id, account, and confirm fields. The description adds the semantic that confirm=true is required specifically for this signing-secret change, reinforcing the schema's general rule, but it does not add new parameter formatting or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Revoke the previous webhook endpoint secret.' It is distinguishable from sibling rotate_webhook_secret because it targets the 'previous' secret rather than rotating to a new one. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from delete_webhook_endpoint or update_webhook_endpoint, but the operation is clear.

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 says 'Requires confirm=true' and implies this is a signing-secret change, which provides some context. However, it never states when an agent should choose this tool over rotate_webhook_secret or why one would revoke a previous secret (e.g., after rotation). It offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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