Delete webhook

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the two-phase behavior: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus confirm_token, and only the second call actually deletes. It also warns that anything still posting stops working, adding valuable 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes necessary information: what the tool does, the consequence, and the safe call sequence. No filler or 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?

For a destructive two-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the core lifecycle: preview, confirm_token, and final deletion. It does not spell out optional parameters or exact second-call payload, but it provides enough for safe invocation.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates by explaining the critical confirm_token workflow and the non-destructive first call. However, it does not explicitly name or clarify dry_run, reason, or guild beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook') and immediately states the consequence ('Anything still posting through it stops working'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_webhook or send_webhook_message.

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 explains when to use the tool (to delete a webhook) and provides explicit safety guidance: 'Safe to call directly' and the two-step confirmation flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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