discord_delete_webhook

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes beyond them meaningfully: it names what gets destroyed (the token), the consequence (integrations using the old token stop working), marks the operation IRREVERSIBLE, and surfaces the auth requirement. This directly adds the 'what gets destroyed' and 'auth needs' context the rubric credits. It is strong but not exhaustive — no mention of error behavior for invalid/nonexistent IDs or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the action, the irreversibility warning with concrete impact, and the permission prerequisite. The action is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 low-complexity tool (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it destroys, irreversibility, and the required permission. The only gaps are error/return behavior (e.g., what happens on a second delete of the same webhook) and rate-limit info, which are minor for a simple destructive operation.

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%: webhook_id is already documented as the snowflake ID of the webhook to delete, with a regex pattern. The description's phrase 'by its ID' merely restates the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the load; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource with precise scope: 'Permanently delete a webhook by its ID, invalidating its token.' The token-invalidation detail makes clear this targets the webhook resource itself, not a webhook message (discord_delete_webhook_message), so it is implicitly distinguishable. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, falling just short of the top bar.

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 when to use the tool (when a webhook must be permanently removed) and states a clear prerequisite: 'Requires the Manage Webhooks permission.' But it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., clarify that deleting a webhook message is a different tool). This is more than 'no guidance' but less than explicit exclusions.

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