kaiten_delete_incoming_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a delete operation on an incoming webhook, which is useful, but it does not mention permanence, side effects on card creation, required permissions, or response behavior. Acceptable but minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(card-creation)' adds valuable disambiguation at minimal length.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters. The description provides enough context for correct invocation, though it could mention the irreversible effect on card creation for greater completeness.

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%, with both space_id and webhook_id already described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and names the exact resource ('incoming (card-creation) webhook') scoped to a 'Kaiten space'. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like kaiten_delete_webhook and other delete operations.

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 qualifier 'incoming (card-creation)' clearly signals when this tool applies versus generic webhook tools. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when-not to use alternative webhook tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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