hookbase_delete_source

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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and reveals a critical behavioral trait: cascading deletion of associated routes. This adds valuable context beyond the basic action, though it could mention permissions or irreversible effects for a higher score.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the action and its side effect. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main action and a key side effect (deleting routes), but could improve by mentioning potential impacts like data loss or confirmation needs, which would enhance completeness for a deletion tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'source_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a webhook source') and identifies the resource ('webhook source'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hookbase_delete_destination or hookbase_delete_route. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying what gets deleted, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when deleting a source is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hookbase_update_source for modifications) or provide exclusions. It mentions cascading deletion of routes, which offers some context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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