beel_delete_webhook_subscription

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

The description discloses the permanent, destructive effect ('No further events are delivered to its URL') and contrasts it with reversible deactivation. It goes beyond the `destructiveHint` annotation by specifying the behavioral consequence on event delivery. It does not mention auth requirements, but those are covered in the parameter schema descriptions, so the description adds meaningful context without contradiction.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains three short sentences: the action, the effect, and the reversible alternative, followed by the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, with zero redundancy 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 two-parameter delete operation without an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: permanent deletion, effect on deliveries, and the reversible alternative. It doesn't describe the response, but that's often trivial for deletes and not required. The schema handles parameter ownership and error semantics, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% – both `account_id` and `webhook_id` have detailed descriptions in the input schema covering semantics, ownership, and error responses. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond referencing the endpoint, which is already implied by the schema. With full coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states the action precisely: 'Permanently deletes a webhook subscription.' It names the specific resource and the irreversible nature, and distinguishes itself from the reversible alternative (set `active` to `false`). It also provides the HTTP endpoint, which reinforces the operation.

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 tells when to use this tool and when not to: 'To stop deliveries reversibly, set `active` to `false` instead.' This points to an alternative (likely `patch_webhook_subscription`) and clarifies the irreversible context, giving the agent clear decision guidance.

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