delete_webhook

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not state that deletion is irreversible, what happens to in-flight deliveries or stored events, whether it 404s on an unknown id, or what permissions are required — all critical for a destructive mutation.

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 with zero waste and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum flag irreversibility and expected failure behavior. The parameter is fully documented by the schema, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before calling a delete tool is missing.

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% (the single `id` parameter is documented as "Webhook UUID"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline case for full schema coverage.

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 names a clear verb and resource ("Delete a webhook endpoint"), so the intent is unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like update_webhook, get_webhook, or delete_domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_webhook or other lifecycle siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or consequences. An agent must infer everything about appropriate invocation from the name alone.

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