delete_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, whether the session must be active, or what happens if the webhookId does not exist — all material for a destructive call.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter operation, though it is too terse to be useful rather than truly economical.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover irreversibility, failure behavior, and where the webhookId comes from. None of these are present, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible call.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about webhookId — not its format, origin, or how to obtain it (presumably from get_webhooks/create_webhook). This is the only input the agent must supply, and it is left completely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deleta um webhook existente') scoped to a session in the Zappaz API. The destructive action is unmistakable and naturally separates it from create_webhook, update_webhook and get_webhooks, though it never names a sibling explicitly. The Portuguese phrasing is understandable but inconsistent with the English tool names.

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 guidance on when to delete versus update, no prerequisites (e.g. must the webhook be inactive?), and no warning about consequences. The only hint of scope is 'para uma sessão', which is context, not usage guidance.

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