webhooks_delete_with_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the requirement to pass __confirm:true and set MCP_DRY_RUN=false to actually delete, the return shape {deleted, webhook_id}, and the behavior that audit_reason is ignored on token routes. This enriches the agent's understanding of execution requirements.

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 exceptionally concise, using bold headers for purpose, when-to-use, auth, and returns. Each sentence delivers distinct value with no redundancy. It packs essential operational details into four short blocks while remaining easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: the action, destructiveness, auth requirements, return value, and the confirmation/dry-run mechanism. Combined with a rich output schema and 100% parameter documentation, this provides a complete operational picture for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond schema by explaining the purpose of __confirm and the MCP_DRY_RUN gate, which is critical for correct invocation. It clarifies token handling context ('treat as credential') is already in the schema, but the description's confirmation/dry-run guidance adds semantic value.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a webhook using its token' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling webhooks_delete tool by mentioning the token-based auth route. It also flags it as DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE, making the action's nature unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear 'When to use' section: 'Self-decommission when the agent only holds the token.' This communicates the primary scenario and implicitly contrasts with bot-authenticated webhook deletion, though it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool. The auth note ('NO Authorization: Bot … header') further clarifies when this route is appropriate.

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