Delete webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the concrete consequence: the webhook secret cannot be recovered. That is a genuine addition beyond the hint flags. It is not a contradiction with idempotentHint — repeated deletes yield the same end state, which is separate from reversibility.

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?

Two short sentences with the downside front-loaded immediately after the action. No filler, no restated name, nothing to trim.

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 delete with no output schema and destructive annotations already present, the irreversible-secret note is the key missing piece and it is supplied. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the webhook ID does not exist.

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% and there is a single required webhookId, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about format, source, or lookup (e.g., where to obtain the ID), making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools or name adjacent webhook operations, but the resource is distinctive enough that no confusion arises.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as tailscale_rotate_webhook_secret, which is the non-destructive way to address a compromised secret. The agent gets no routing help, only a warning about the outcome.

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