webhooks_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried by structured data; the description still earns credit for adding what the annotations do not: that the delete cascades to delivery history and that recovery is impossible. It stops short of noting permission requirements or confirming behavior for an already-deleted UUID, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing. The destructive scope is front-loaded in sentence one and the alternative route follows immediately in sentence two, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter delete with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent, closed-world) and no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing material is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics for uuid or the companyId override beyond what the schema already states.

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 — 'Permanently delete a webhook endpoint and all its delivery history' — which is unmistakably distinct from webhooks_update, webhooks_regenerate_secret, or any list/get sibling. The scope of the deletion (endpoint plus history) is included, not just the verb.

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 names the alternative behavior an agent might actually want and the sibling that provides it: 'To pause deliveries temporarily, use webhooks_update with isActive: false instead.' This is a when-not-to-use rule with the exact fallback tool and parameter value, leaving nothing to inference.

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