Xoá cấu hình webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note that deletion is permanent, whether the webhook stops firing immediately, or what happens to historical logs. With annotations carrying the burden, this is the minimum-additive case, not a contradiction.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with no preamble or filler. However, the Vietnamese/English duplication conveys the identical fact twice, so half the content is redundant rather than earning its place.

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 an irreversible delete with a single opaque required identifier, no output schema, and no annotations explaining consequences, the description should at least identify the parameter source and confirm permanence. Neither is present, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this safely.

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 0%: config_id is documented only as a bare string with no format, origin, or example. The description does not compensate — it never mentions the parameter or where to obtain a valid config_id, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces before calling a delete tool.

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 says 'Delete a webhook config', which is a grammatical verb+resource, but it adds nothing beyond the tool name (monapay_delete_webhook) and the title (Xoá cấu hình webhook) — it is a straight bilingual restatement. It also gives no signal to distinguish it from siblings like monapay_update_webhook, monapay_create_webhook, or monapay_delete_email_config.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a config_id obtained from monapay_list_webhooks), and no mention of the alternative of updating rather than deleting. The agent must infer everything about when this tool is appropriate.

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