Delete webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is permanent, which is critical for a destructive action. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether the webhook stops receiving events immediately, whether related data is affected, or if any confirmation is required). The permanence warning is valuable but incomplete 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 sentence that front-loads the core action and permanence, then adds a practical usage note about secret rotation. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, that it's permanent, and a common workflow (secret rotation). It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but with a single id parameter and no output schema, the missing details are minor. The sibling list includes create-webhook and update-webhook, and the description's rotation note helps disambiguate.

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 only parameter 'id' is described as 'Webhook uuid' with minLength 1. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('webhook endpoint'), and adds the permanence qualifier ('permanently'). It also distinguishes itself from update-webhook by explicitly noting that secret rotation is done via delete-then-create, which helps an agent understand this tool's role relative to its siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to delete a webhook permanently, and notably for secret rotation via delete-then-create. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like update-webhook for non-rotation changes, but the rotation hint implies the workflow. A small gap is not stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for temporary disabling), but the guidance is otherwise useful.

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