Rekko MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove' but does not specify whether this is permanent, what happens to pending webhook deliveries, error conditions (e.g., if ID doesn't exist), or required permissions. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 with zero redundant text. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed immediately by the Args documentation. Every line serves a distinct function without filler.

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?

Given the tool has only one simple parameter and an output schema (relieving the description of needing to document return values), the description meets minimum viability by covering the action and parameter semantics. However, gaps remain regarding error handling, permanence of deletion, and side effects, which are unaddressed due to missing annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting the webhook_id parameter in the Args section, specifying both its semantic meaning ('Webhook identifier') and its provenance ('returned by create_webhook'), which aids the agent in understanding the parameter's lifecycle context.

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 the tool removes a registered webhook using a specific action verb and resource. While it distinguishes implicitly from siblings like create_webhook through the 'Remove' verb, it does not explicitly contrast usage with list_webhooks or create_webhook in the text.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'use when webhook is no longer needed') or when not to use it. The only contextual clue is the parameter description noting the ID comes from create_webhook, implying a lifecycle relationship, but this is insufficient for explicit usage guidelines.

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