growsurf_delete_campaign_webhook

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is already disclosed. The description adds value by specifying the return format ({ id, success }) and the fallback targeting behavior (GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID when campaignId is omitted). It does not contradict any annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences plus a targeting note. It fronts the core action immediately, includes only essential behavioral details, and contains no filler or redundant phrases. Every sentence 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 delete operation with annotations covering destructive behavior, the description provides the return format and the campaign resolution logic, which are critical for correct invocation. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but given the simplicity of the operation and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. A slight gap is not explaining the exact format of webhookId (e.g., where to obtain it), but this is minor.

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?

The schema covers campaignId with a detailed description, while webhookId has no schema description. The tool description mentions 'by id' for webhookId but adds no new meaning—webhookId's role is inferred from the name. For campaignId, the description restates what the schema already says ('Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID') without adding further detail. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented webhookId.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('a webhook'), and the scope ('from your GrowSurf program'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, list, and test webhooks. The inclusion of the return format { id, success } adds clarity without confusion.

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 implies the use case (deleting a webhook) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It does not state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other webhook operations. The targeting logic for campaignId is a parameter detail, not usage guidance. Overall, usage context is clear from the name but not explicitly articulated.

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