Delete Webhook

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

The description adds 'This is destructive,' which repeats the destructiveHint=true annotation. Beyond that, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., effects on webhook deliveries, whether it deletes logs or secrets). The openWorldHint=true is present in annotations but not expanded upon, so the description provides minimal added value.

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 short, with two sentences. The second sentence might be considered redundant given the destructiveHint annotation, but it reinforces the point. No unnecessary fluff, and the message is front-loaded. Could be slightly improved by merging or clarifying, but overall efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, clear destructive nature, and annotations handling safety info), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks mention of irreversibility or side effects (openWorldHint). With an output schema present, the return format is covered. Overall, it meets the minimum but has gaps.

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 describes the 'id' parameter as 'ShipMail resource ID.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any further context about what kind of ID (e.g., webhook ID) or its format. It neither improves nor worsens the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a webhook endpoint', effectively communicating the tool's action. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'create_webhook' by the action, it does not explicitly differentiate from other webhook tools like 'rotate_webhook_secret' or 'test_webhook', but the name implies the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., webhook must exist) or that the action is irreversible beyond calling it destructive. No comparison to siblings like 'update_webhook' or 'rotate_webhook_secret'.

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