delete_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the highest-value trait: the operation is irreversible and the secret cannot be recovered, since re-registering mints a new one. However, it says nothing about required permissions/scope, what happens to queued deliveries, or the effect of omitting projectId.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the destructive warning front-loaded right after the purpose. Every clause earns its place by conveying an unusable-otherwise fact.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must stand alone. It covers the critical destructive consequence but leaves open permissions, parameter roles, and error behavior — enough to call it safely only in the common case.

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% and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. It never identifies what 'id' refers to (webhook vs project) or what 'projectId' does or whether it is required in addition to id — a real gap given the two are both strings.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('webhook registration'), which the sibling names create_webhook/update_webhook/list_webhooks make unambiguous. An agent can pick this out as the deletion counterpart without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the sibling set, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative named (e.g. disabling vs deleting). The agent must infer the context.

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