delete_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: queued deliveries are still attempted and are signed with the secret they were queued with, plus irreversibility. The access/authentication block is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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 behavioral consequences are front-loaded ahead of the access instructions, and each sentence carries distinct information (scope, queued deliveries, irreversibility, auth). The ACCESS block is slightly long relative to the core operation but is not padding, since each clause is actionable.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: the effect on future events, the fate of in-flight deliveries, irreversibility, and the authentication gate. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer before calling it.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage and a 24-hex-character pattern documented in the schema, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no id sourcing or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline case for a fully covered single-parameter schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a webhook endpoint") and immediately scopes the consequence ("It receives no new events"), which clearly separates it from siblings such as update_webhook_endpoint or rotate_webhook_endpoint_secret. An agent can identify the operation and its effect without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when this applies and, importantly, a hard prerequisite for use (needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY set, server restarted) plus an explicit dead end ("start_login does NOT open this tool"). It stops short of naming alternatives, e.g. whether updating the endpoint to disable it is a non-destructive option, so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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