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 correctly discloses that this is a destructive operation and imposes a user-confirmation gate, which is valuable. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether in-flight events are dropped, or error behavior for a nonexistent webhook.

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?

Three short sentences with the destructive action first and the safety gate second. Nothing is redundant and nothing needed is buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity and the confirmation requirement, but leaves out reversibility and side effects on webhook subscriptions. An agent could call it correctly but not fully anticipate consequences.

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% and the only parameter is already documented as "The webhook ID (wh_xxx) or name." The description repeats that same fact ("Can be identified by ID (wh_xxx) or name") without adding resolution semantics, such as what happens if a name matches multiple webhooks. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a webhook") plus scope ("from your workspace"), which unambiguously separates it from create/get/list/update-webhook siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, but the verb alone does the disambiguating work.

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?

Adds an explicit, actionable precondition: "Before using this tool, you MUST double-check with the user." That is real when-to-use guidance. It does not address edge cases such as deleting a webhook that has pending deliveries or what to do if two webhooks share a name.

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