gitlab_delete_webhook

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. 'Delete a webhook' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if webhook doesn't exist), side effects, or confirmation prompts. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—'Delete a webhook' is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error responses), permissions needed, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'gitlab_list_webhooks'). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective 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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (project_id and webhook_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how to obtain these IDs or their format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Delete a webhook' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (webhook), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_delete_cicd_variable' or 'gitlab_delete_trigger_token' beyond the resource name, missing explicit distinction in scope or context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), related tools like 'gitlab_get_webhook' for verification, or exclusions (e.g., not for deleting other resources). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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