delete_mailbox_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other important behaviors: whether deletion is irreversible, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., stopped deliveries). Partial transparency.

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 – two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and idempotency note. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the response or confirmation of deletion. For a simple delete operation, this may be acceptable, but it would be more complete to mention what the caller should expect (e.g., success status or empty response).

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 100%, achieving the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Since all parameters are well-documented in the schema, the description does not need to repeat them.

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 a webhook' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_mailbox_webhook (create) and update_mailbox_webhook (modify), making the tool's 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 notes idempotency ('succeeds even if already deleted'), which is helpful for repeated use. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternative deletion methods, or any prerequisites like ownership or state checks. The guidance is minimal.

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