Manus MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a removal/deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't clarify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects. No information about permissions, rate limits, or response format is included, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether confirmation is required, or what the response contains. Given the tool's potential impact and lack of structured metadata, more behavioral context is needed to make it complete for safe agent use.

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%, so the parameter 'webhook_id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides ('The ID of the webhook to delete'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Remove') and target ('previously registered webhook by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_webhook', but the verb 'Remove' versus 'create' provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what gets removed rather than just restating the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. While 'previously registered' implies the webhook must exist, it doesn't specify conditions for deletion or warn about consequences. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'create_webhook' for comparison or when deletion might be appropriate versus modification.

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