Delete a webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the state change to the account, the required confirm=true guard, and the webhooks:write OAuth scope. It omits whether deletion is reversible or what happens on a repeat call.

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?

Three short sentences with the destructive action front-loaded, followed by the guard and the auth requirement. No filler text, though the second sentence is slightly compressed/garbled in phrasing ('for the user-requested action').

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the mutation, the confirmation requirement, and the required OAuth scope. Remaining gaps (reversibility, error behavior on repeat deletion) are minor given the annotations already flag destructiveness and non-idempotency.

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%, so account, confirm, endpoint_id, and publication_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm semantics but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides — the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete a webhook'), which an agent can distinguish from update_webhook, get_webhook, and list_webhooks by name alone. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from update_webhook (the non-destructive alternative), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a real usage condition — 'requires confirm=true for the user-requested action' — and an auth prerequisite ('OAuth integrations require webhooks:write'). It does not tell the agent when to prefer a non-destructive alternative such as update_webhook, nor what to do if the user has not explicitly asked for deletion, leaving usage implied rather than complete.

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