Multilead Open API MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('removes') without detailing behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, error responses, or rate limits. It mentions 'Success confirmation' but lacks specifics on what that entails.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the core action, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into natural language.

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 operation with no annotations, 3 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context like authentication needs, side effects, or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 0%, but the description lists all three parameters with brief labels (e.g., 'User ID', 'Account ID', 'Webhook ID to delete'), adding basic semantic context beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't explain format, validation rules, or relationships between parameters.

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 specific action ('Delete'), resource ('a non-global webhook'), and mechanism ('by its ID'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'delete_global_webhook' by specifying 'non-global' scope, providing clear differentiation.

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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying 'non-global webhook' and mentioning the sibling 'delete_global_webhook' in the tool list, suggesting when to use this tool versus its global counterpart. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or error conditions.

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