x_api_delete_webhooks_stream_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses mutating/high-risk nature, requires bearer token, explains environment-selection behavior for auth resolution, lists common failure conditions, and includes safety warnings. It lacks specifics on permanence or cascading effects of deletion, but provides solid behavioral context.

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 well-organized with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly redundant ('Use when: Delete stream link' repeats the purpose; 'Risk' and 'Safety warnings' overlap) but remains compact given the tool's complexity. The example is useful and 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?

It covers purpose, risk, permissions, auth scoping, response shape, failure conditions, prerequisites, and example, which is quite complete for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema. Gaps remain in parameter documentation (authorizationKey, preferredAuthType) and some delete-specific behavior, but the description is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool safely in most cases.

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 description must compensate. It does explain webhook_id as a path parameter and clarifies the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in auth resolution. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not addressed, and webhook_id's format is vague ('unknown'). The example shows typical arguments, adding some practical meaning.

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 stream link' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_api_get_webhooks_stream_links and x_api_create_webhooks_stream_links. However, it doesn't elaborate on what a stream link is or the full implications of deletion, relying on the tool name for context. The 'Use when' line is tautological.

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 'Use when' is tautological ('Delete stream link'). The 'Do not use when' provides some guidance for exploration/auth-config scenarios and suggests alternatives like x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion, but it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools for deleting stream links. Recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools add some context but no specific when-to-use vs. create/get alternatives.

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