delete_webhook_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'HARD delete — the row is removed and cannot be restored, and any caller using its token starts failing immediately.' This fully discloses the irreversible and immediate impact, which is excellent transparency for a destructive tool.

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 consists of two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a critical behavioral warning. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (deletion with two parameters) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and behavior. It does not mention return values or prerequisites, but for a deletion tool these are less critical. The description is nearly complete for a destructive operation.

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 both parameters (webhookId and confirm). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; the warning in the description is behavioral, not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Delete a webhook trigger' with the verb 'Delete' and resource 'webhook trigger'. It distinguishes itself by specifying 'HARD delete' and the irreversible consequences, making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from any other webhook trigger operations (e.g., list, create, rotate). No sibling tool has a similar destructive action on webhook triggers.

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 implies usage for permanently removing a webhook trigger, and the warning about irreversibility serves as implicit guidance to use with caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if a soft delete existed) or provide when-not-to-use conditions. Since there is only one delete tool, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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