beel_delete_webhook_subscription

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the concrete consequence 'No further events are delivered to its URL' and the reversible alternative, which go beyond the annotations by explaining the impact and providing a decision path. While the 'permanently deletes' phrasing partially mirrors the destructive hint, the added context about stopping delivery and the alternative justifies a score above the baseline.

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?

Two sentences plus an endpoint line, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the consequence is stated, and the alternative is provided in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. The description supplies the key usage decision (permanent vs reversible) and the endpoint. No output schema exists, so return values are undefined, but for a destructive delete that's acceptable. Slight gap: no mention of what the response contains (e.g., success/failure body), but this is minor given the annotations and simplicity. Complete enough for an agent to call 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?

The input schema descriptions are exceptionally detailed, covering 100% of parameters, including nuanced authorization and error-disclosure semantics (403 for unauthorized accounts, 404 for non-existent subscriptions). The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the schema fully covers them. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional param info is needed.

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 and resource: 'Permanently deletes a webhook subscription.' It distinguishes this from the related sibling tools beel_create_webhook_subscription and beel_patch_webhook_subscription by emphasizing permanence, which is not present in the other tools' names. The addition of the endpoint clarifies the exact operation, leaving no ambiguity about what this 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when a permanent deletion is desired. It also directs the agent to the reversible alternative, `beel_patch_webhook_subscription`, by stating 'To stop deliveries reversibly, set `active` to `false` instead.' This is a clear when/alternative directive that maps directly to a sibling tool, satisfying the dimension fully.

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