Delete Webhook

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

The annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and while it doesn't add significant behavioral details beyond them, it doesn't need to given the comprehensive annotation coverage. The description could have mentioned what 'delete' entails (e.g., irreversible removal), but the annotations provide sufficient context.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the comprehensive annotations (destructive, idempotent, etc.) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output information (no schema provided) and doesn't explain the deletion's impact or confirm success behavior, leaving some gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'webhook_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate but not exceptional, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('webhook subscription'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_api_key' or 'dual_delete_template' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a webhook ID from 'dual_list_webhooks' or 'dual_get_webhook'), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'dual_update_webhook' or 'dual_test_webhook'.

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