mercury_delete_webhook

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint: true, so the description reinforces this with concrete side effects: permanent deletion, lost delivery history, no replay. This adds valuable context beyond the annotation, though the annotation already signals the core destructive trait.

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 well-structured with bold headings and bullet points, front-loading the key purpose and destruction warning. While comprehensive, it is not overly verbose and each section adds value, though slightly longer than minimal.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return payload. It covers purpose, usage side effects, and behavioral expectations comprehensively for a destructive tool with one parameter.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (webhookId) with format and description, so the description doesn't add additional semantic value. It mentions the need for user confirmation but that's a usage guideline, not parameter-specific detail.

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 action 'Delete a webhook endpoint' and highlights its destructive nature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mercury_update_webhook by emphasizing permanent deletion vs. pausing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (decommissioning webhooks) and when not to (temporary silence), with a clear alternative: use mercury_update_webhook with status 'paused' instead. This provides direct guidance for decision-making.

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