delete_webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful nuance beyond that: the deletion is 'permanent and cannot be undone', which matters because many sibling resources have restore_* tools but no webhook restore exists. It still omits auth requirements and any cascade effects.

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 first two sentences are near-verbatim restatements of each other ('Delete a webhook. Delete a webhook using its unique identifier.'), wasting a third of the text. The permanent-deletion warning is the only sentence that earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: purpose plus irreversibility are stated. It leaves gaps around permissions/scope and whether anything referencing the webhook is affected.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a nested object (path.webhookId), so the description carries some burden. Saying deletion happens 'using its unique identifier' correctly signals that the parameter is the webhook's ID, which maps to webhookId, but it adds no format or type detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling mutators like delete_application or delete_issue. However, the second sentence only restates the same act, and nothing differentiates it from the sibling webhook tools (get_webhook, put_webhook, post_webhook).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative webhook tools (get_webhook, put_webhook, get_webhook_collection) that an agent should consider first. The only hint is the word 'unique identifier', not routing guidance.

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