Delete Mail Webhook

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint: true, so the description is not required to restate that deletion is destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as permanence, irreversibility, immediate effect, or any required conditions. It is essentially a restatement of the name/title without enriching the agent's understanding beyond the annotation.

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 a single, short sentence: 'Delete a webhook.' It is front-loaded with the verb and object, contains no filler, and earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description is nearly sufficient. Combined with the schema (webhook_id) and annotation (destructiveHint: true), the agent has the core information: what to delete and that it is destructive. A small gap is that the description does not mention the consequence (e.g., preventing future deliveries) or that the action is permanent, but the destructive annotation carries that weight. Thus it is complete enough.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters: webhook_id is a required string with its own description 'Webhook ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter is self-explanatory.

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 'Delete a webhook' uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('webhook'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mail_webhooks_list, mail_webhooks_get, mail_webhooks_create, mail_webhooks_update, and mail_webhooks_test. It is unambiguous and directly states the action.

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: it is the delete operation within the mail webhooks family. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., use mail_webhooks_update to modify, use mail_webhooks_create to add). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, but the verb and resource make the intended use reasonably clear.

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