delete_webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description's one added value is the ownership scope ('created by this API client'), but it says nothing about permanence, confirmation, or side effects on deliveries beyond what annotations provide.

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 filler; the scope qualifier is positioned right after the verb-resource pair. It is tight but so terse that it verges on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there is only one required parameter. Annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The only gap is the absence of confirmation or irreversibility wording, which is minor given destructiveHint.

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% for the single required webhook_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify whether the ID is the API-level webhook ID or an external provider ID, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus resource (webhook), and it adds a real scoping constraint: only webhooks created by this API client can be deleted. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with sibling delete_* tools or the webhook siblings (list/create/update_webhook), so an agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to delete, and no named alternatives such as update_webhook for modifying an existing webhook. The implied usage (remove a webhook you own) is left entirely to inference.

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