delete_webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: irreversibility ('Permanently'), the side effect on event delivery, an auth requirement ('Admin only'), and a return shape ('{ok:true}'). It does not address failure modes or the notably non-idempotent behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, privilege, effect, and return value with no filler. Every clause 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 two-parameter destructive delete, the description covers what gets destroyed, the auth bar, the side effect, and the return value, while annotations and the schema cover the rest. Only the absence of failure-mode/idempotency context leaves a small gap.

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%, including a helpful note that 'id' comes from list_webhooks and a multisite note for 'site'. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Permanently delete a webhook') plus the observable consequence ('no further events are sent to its URL'). It is clearly distinguishable from create_webhook/list_webhooks by the verb alone, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive framing and the '(Admin only)' prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_webhooks or create_webhook. The agent must infer that this is the removal path.

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