edubase_delete_organization_webhook

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond these flags by specifying the effect on notifications: 'no more notifications are sent to its endpoint', and by contrasting removal with disabling. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or recreation requirements, but the destructive annotation plus the contrast with patch covers the essential behavior.

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 with no filler. The primary action and consequence are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative tool is given in the second. Every part 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 operation with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, its effect, and the relevant alternative. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the low complexity means nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, each described as an 'identification string.' The tool description does not add extra meaning about parameter format, validation, or relationships, so it does not exceed the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a webhook from an organization', and clearly states the behavioral consequence, 'no more notifications are sent to its endpoint.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by explicitly naming edubase_patch_organization_webhook as the alternative for merely disabling, so an agent can differentiate the tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this tool for removal and edubase_patch_organization_webhook when the intent is 'only disable it.' This directly addresses when to choose this tool versus the closest alternative, leaving little to inference.

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