Api webhooks endpoints destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's marginal job is to explain consequences — e.g. that deletion is permanent, whether related delivery records survive, whether confirmation is needed. It supplies none of that. It does not directly contradict the annotations (it never claims read-only), so this is omission rather than contradiction.

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?

A single short sentence, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: it spends its only clause listing operations this tool does not perform. There is no front-loaded statement of the destructive action.

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, non-reversible operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at minimum identify the target resource, the identifier parameter, and the irreversibility. It provides none of these, leaving an agent unable to judge whether calling it is safe.

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 has one required parameter, 'id', with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication that it is the webhook endpoint identifier, nor its format. With schema coverage this low the description had to compensate and does not.

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 says only 'API endpoint to create, list, retrieve, update, and delete' — a generic restatement of the whole CRUD family for this resource rather than a statement of what this specific tool does. Nothing indicates that this tool deletes exactly one webhook endpoint by id, so the agent must rely on the name suffix alone to disambiguate it from the many sibling list/retrieve/create/update 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. the endpoint must exist), and no mention of alternatives. Worse, the enumeration of create/list/retrieve/update operations gives no signal that this is the destructive member of the family, so the description actively competes with the tool's actual role.

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