删除 webhook

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

没有任何注解，描述承担了主要行为披露责任。它至少明确标出'高风险'并指出会删除 webhook，还包含统一响应格式，是有价值的信息。但未说明删除是否可逆、是否需要权限、删除后对消息接收等下游功能的影响，行为透明性仍不完整。

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?

描述非常精炼，先给出接口路径和风险提示，再说明请求参数，最后提供统一响应，信息密度高且没有冗余。每部分都有实际用途，整体结构利于快速阅读。

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?

工具只有一个必填参数且无输出 schema，描述覆盖了端点、参数和响应格式，已满足调用所需的主要信息。虽然缺少错误情况和删除后果的说明，但针对这种简单删除接口，整体已经足够完整，不足以评 5 分。

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?

输入 schema 已完整描述 webhookId 的类型和含义，覆盖率达 100%，描述只是重复了参数名、'webhook编号'和'必填'信息，没有在 schema 之外增加新的语义或格式说明，因此维持中等基线分。

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?

描述明确指出了具体动作（删除）和资源（webhook），并给出了接口路径，能够与同组的 open_webhook_add/list/detail/edit 明显区分。'删除 webhook' 虽与标题重复，但结合高风险说明，目的清晰无误。

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?

没有说明何时使用该工具、何时避免使用，也没有提供与 open_webhook_edit 或 open_webhook_detail 等替代工具的对比。仅通过动词'删除'隐含使用场景，缺少明确的触发条件和前提要求。

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