directus_delete_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable deprecation context but omits other critical behavioral details expected for a delete operation, such as irreversibility warnings, permission requirements, or whether the deletion cascades to related resources.

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 only two sentences containing actionable information. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise, but the remaining content is efficiently front-loaded with the most critical information (deprecation) presented immediately.

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 zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. For a 2-parameter tool, failing to document what 'site' and 'id' represent is a significant gap. The deprecation warning is helpful but insufficient to compensate for completely undocumented parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage for both 'site' and 'id' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' refers to (ID? Name? URL?) or confirming that 'id' is the webhook identifier. This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter values.

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 'Delete a webhook' with a specific verb and resource. The deprecation notice and mention of 'Flows' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like directus_create_flow and directus_delete_flow, clarifying this is the legacy webhook system.

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 explicitly recommends using 'Flows instead in Directus 10+', providing clear guidance on the preferred alternative. However, it doesn't specify when you might still need to use this tool (e.g., for legacy Directus versions or existing webhook maintenance).

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