hires_delete_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the operation deletes the webhook but does not mention permanence, error handling, permission requirements, or idempotency. For a destructive operation, this is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes practical use cases without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the required identifier, and when to use it. It could mention irreversible consequences or error behavior, but the given context is sufficient for typical agent invocation.

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% with both parameters described ('Company ID', 'Webhook ID'). The description adds little beyond the schema—'by ID' restates what the schema already implies. 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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the target resource ('webhook subscription'), and its scope ('company-scoped'), and specifies the identifier ('by ID'). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'hires_delete_job_webhook' or 'hires_delete_candidate'.

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 first sentence defines the function, and the second provides concrete use cases ('endpoint retirement and security rotation'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over similar delete operations.

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