Permanently remove a webhook endpoint and its delivery log when the user explicitly requests deletion; this destructive action cannot be undone.
Delete a webhook endpoint and its delivery log.
DESTRUCTIVE: this cannot be undone. Only call it when the user explicitly asked for exactly this action.
Requires scope webhooks:write.
DESTRUCTIVE: cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the irreversibility warning, the cascade to delivery logs, and the required `webhooks:write` scope — all context not in the structured fields. It loses a point only because the DESTRUCTIVE warning is stated twice, which adds noise rather than new information.
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 opening line and scope requirement are well front-loaded, but 'DESTRUCTIVE: this cannot be undone' appears verbatim twice (opening and closing), so roughly a third of the text is redundant padding.
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 single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, scope, and the side effect on delivery logs. Only the identity of the `id` argument is left unexplained.
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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should clarify what `id` refers to (endpoint vs. delivery identifier). It never mentions the parameter, leaving its meaning to be inferred from the tool name alone.
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 and resource ('Delete a webhook endpoint') and adds the important consequence that the delivery log goes with it. That scope detail plus the sibling set (update_webhook_endpoint, rotate_webhook_secret, list_webhook_endpoints) makes the operation unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly constrains invocation to cases where 'the user explicitly asked for exactly this action,' which is a meaningful gate for a destructive tool. It does not name an alternative for softer intents (e.g., disabling via update_webhook_endpoint), so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.