Remove a Teamline webhook

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating that the token is read only from the TEAMLINE_API_KEY environment variable, which is not present in annotations. It also names the API method, providing a behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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—two short sentences that immediately state the action and the critical auth requirement. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information or filler.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with destructive annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, required input, and auth mechanism. It does not mention return values, but there is no output schema specified, and for a removal operation this is minor. The only slight gap is the lack of clarity on whether the removal is permanent, but the destructiveHint annotation implicitly covers this.

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 the 'hook' parameter with a description ('Id of the hook to remove'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats this by saying 'Requires hook (id string)' but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 'Remove' and the resource 'Teamline webhook', and specifies the underlying method 'webhooks.remove'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'teamline_webhooks_create' and other task-related tools, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 indicates the action and the required parameter but lacks any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios like deleting obsolete webhooks or when not to use it, though the auth prerequisite (TEAMLINE_API_KEY) is noted. The usage context is implied by the name and action rather than stated.

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