delete_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, if it triggers downstream events, or if it requires certain permissions). This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted content. It is front-loaded and clear, but some would argue it is under-specified given the missing context for a destructive tool.

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 is a destructive operation with no annotations, and the output schema exists but is not referenced, the description should provide more context about return values, error states, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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 100% for the single parameter 'webhook_id', which is well-documented as 'Webhook ID' in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Delete a webhook' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, among siblings like 'delete_event_type_webhook' and 'delete_team_event_type_webhook', it does not differentiate itself, leaving ambiguity about what kind of webhook this applies to (e.g., general webhooks vs. event-type-specific webhooks).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_event_type_webhook' or 'delete_team_event_type_webhook'. It does not specify prerequisites, idempotency, or consequences of deletion, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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