Xoá cấu hình webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the delete operation and adds nothing about permanence, failure behavior, side effects, authentication needs, or response shape.

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, short, front-loaded sentence in two languages with no wasted words. However, it largely repeats the tool name and title, so the conciseness does not add much informational value.

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 delete operation, the core instruction is present and minimally usable. But with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without behavioral expectations or any guidance on locating config_id, so completeness is only adequate for a very simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and config_id is only described as a required string. The description adds the minimal context that the resource is a 'webhook config', which lets an agent infer that config_id identifies that config, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format expectations.

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 action and resource: 'Delete a webhook config', and the Vietnamese title reinforces it. It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like monapay_create_webhook, monapay_update_webhook, or monapay_test_webhook because of the delete verb, even without explicit comparison.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that the config must exist, that the operation is irreversible), and no indication that config_id should be obtained from monapay_list_webhooks. The sibling list shows many webhook-related operations, but the description provides no routing help.

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