delete_repo_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It only says 'delete', which implies a destructive action, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires specific permissions (e.g., admin access), or what happens to the webhook after deletion. This lack of context leaves important operational behavior unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation, though it could have included behavioral context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (three required parameters, no output schema), the description together with the schema provides a minimum viable context for invoking the tool. However, it lacks any mention of side effects or usage context relative to sibling webhook tools, making it slightly incomplete for agents needing broader operational guidance.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (owner, repo, hook_id) with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'repository webhook', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_org_webhook by specifying 'repository', though it does so only through the resource name rather than explicit comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_org_webhook. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or any scenario where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling tool names alone.

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