delete_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'completely' hinting at destructive/irreversible deletion, but it does not specify whether associated requests are also deleted, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete tool, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and fully covered parameters, the description is too sparse for a destructive operation. It lacks essential behavioral context such as side effects, irreversibility, permissions, and what happens on success or failure. This makes it barely sufficient for an agent to safely use the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (api_key and token_id) with descriptions about being optional or using environment variables. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents them thoroughly, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'Webhook.site token/URL completely', making it clear that this tool removes a token/URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token, create_token, and update_token.

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 is for deleting a token/URL, but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusion information. It does not mention related tools like delete_requests or prerequisites such as needing a token_id, so guidance is minimal.

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