delete_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a webhook, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., impact on related data). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a webhook.') followed by parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, with each sentence serving a clear function. However, the parameter section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate 'Args:' block, slightly affecting structure.

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 a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like safety warnings or usage context. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more guidance on when and how to use the tool would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining 'show' as 'One of the slugs configured in PODHOME_SHOWS' and 'integration_id' as 'The ID of the webhook to delete', providing essential context not in the schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug patterns or ID formats), leaving some ambiguity. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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') and resource ('a webhook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_webhook' and 'test_webhook' by specifying deletion rather than creation or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'modify_episode' or 'create_clip' in terms of resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_webhooks' for verification. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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