webhooks_delete

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly marks the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE', explains the confirmation mechanism (__confirm:true) and the MCP_DRY_RUN=false requirement, and describes the return value. This complements the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining how the destructive nature is guarded, which is valuable 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?

The description is efficiently organized with bold headers for Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Every sentence is purposeful: it states the action, its irreversibility, a use case, the return value, and a critical execution requirement. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple delete operation with 3 params, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential usage guidance, the safety requirement (dry-run/confirm), and return value. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, including the required environment condition. The only minor omission is lack of error handling details, but these are typically not required for a tool of this simplicity.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the __confirm parameter's role and the MCP_DRY_RUN condition, which is not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3, though the schema already covers the basics.

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 'Delete a webhook by id.' with the verb 'delete' and resource 'webhook by id'. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools by the 'by id' phrasing, but it does not explicitly differentiate from webhooks_delete_with_token, which also deletes webhooks. Overall, purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a clear 'When to use' with a concrete use case: 'Decommission a stale or compromised webhook.' This gives a clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., webhooks_delete_with_token), so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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