mail_deleteWebhookV1Delete a webhook permanently using its ID to immediately stop all event notifications. This action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a webhook. This action cannot be undone. After deletion the URL no longer receives event notifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | Webhook ID (returned when the webhook was created) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.23.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the permanence warning and the concrete consequence that the URL stops receiving event notifications. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds useful information: what happens, the irreversibility, and the operational consequence.
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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is deleted, permanence, and the effect on the webhook URL. No output schema exists, and none is needed for this simple action.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Webhook ID (returned when the webhook was created)'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fully documents the only parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the exact verb and resource ('Permanently delete a webhook') with a clear consequence. It distinguishes itself from sibling webhook tools (create, list, get, update) by emphasizing permanent removal.
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 usage: call this when a webhook should be permanently removed and stop receiving event notifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.