Delete webhook

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

Annotations already declare 'destructiveHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds that deletion is based on destination/events, but does not disclose whether all matching webhooks are deleted if only 'destination' is provided, or whether the operation is reversible. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and criteria efficiently.

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 tool with openWorldHint and ambiguous parameter semantics, the description is too terse. It fails to explain the meaning of 'settings', the exact semantics of 'and/or' (whether it can match multiple webhooks), and the behavior when no parameters are supplied. Since the schema does not compensate, the tool is under-specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'destination URL' and 'events', but the schema parameters are 'settings' (array of strings) and 'destination' (uri). The description does not explicitly map 'events' to 'settings', nor does it clarify that at least one parameter must be provided despite the schema listing zero required parameters. This ambiguity leaves an agent guessing about how to populate the parameters.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'webhook', and adds the identification criteria 'by destination URL and/or events'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kommo_webhooks_list' and 'kommo_webhooks_add'.

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 implies use when a webhook needs to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it reference 'kommo_webhooks_list' for discovering existing webhooks. It provides no exclusions, but for a simple delete operation the context is adequate.

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