monday_delete_webhook

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

The annotations already disclose that the tool is destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds some useful context beyond those annotations: governance routing, effect verification by Spring, idempotency-key handling, and approval_ref usage when resuming a write. It does not describe concrete side effects or confirm the permanent removal of a webhook, but the destructiveHint covers the main risk.

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 compact and organized as a short header plus a bulleted Args list. It avoids filler, though the first sentence is largely redundant with the tool name. Overall, the structure is easy to scan and front-loads the key routing constraint before the parameter list.

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 connector operation with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It fails to specify what the 'arguments' JSON should contain (e.g., the webhook ID), when approval_ref is actually required, and what the deleted webhook is selected by. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input semantics for the operation itself remain underspecified.

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 the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides a one-line explanation for all seven parameters, including non-obvious ones like idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref. However, the critical 'arguments' parameter remains generic ('JSON string of arguments for the connector operation') with no operation-specific structure, which limits the practical value.

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 identifies the tool as the Monday `delete_webhook` connector operation, making the verb (delete) and resource (webhook) clear from the name and explicit operation token. It doesn't add much plain-language explanation beyond the name, but the operation is specific enough that an agent can tell what it does. There is no explicit differentiation from siblings, but the delete/create contrast is apparent from the tool names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only guidance-like sentence, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' describes a routing constraint rather than when to invoke delete_webhook. It does not mention monday_create_webhook, monday_list_* tools, or any alternative approach.

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