twitter_monitor_webhook_delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable nuance: it is a soft delete, not a cascade delete, and delivery history is retained. It also discloses irreversibility from the caller's side and the fact that it is free per call. This goes beyond the raw annotation and gives the agent a precise behavioral model, though it does not detail any side effects on the delivery history beyond retention.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and effect, then immediately address retention, irreversibility, and recovery. Every clause earns its place, and there is zero filler or repetition. This is an ideal example of efficient, high-signal writing.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear destructive intent) and the strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, immediate consequence, historical data handling, irreversibility, and the path to restore functionality. The combination of annotations and description fully equips the agent to make an informed call.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, including its source. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the phrase 'by id', which is redundant. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, but it also does not enrich the parameter understanding.

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 soft-deletes a webhook by id, explains the immediate effect (stops deliveries, disappears from list), and explicitly references sibling tools (twitter_monitor_webhook_list and twitter_monitor_webhook_create) to differentiate its role. The verb 'delete' combined with the resource and the nuanced 'soft' qualifier leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 strong contextual guidance: it notes the action is irreversible and recommends creating a new webhook via twitter_monitor_webhook_create to resume delivery. This effectively tells the caller when this tool is appropriate (when stopping a webhook) and what to do as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with other deletion-like tools (e.g., hard delete if it existed), so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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