Delete Webhook Subscription

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 safety is covered. The description usefully adds the required scope (webhooks:write) and the confirm=true gate, which are behavioral facts the annotations do not carry.

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, no padding, and the mutation is front-loaded. The opening sentence duplicates the title verbatim, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential preconditions: scope requirement and explicit confirmation. It does not say whether the deletion is recoverable or what happens to in-flight webhook deliveries, but the core invocation facts are present.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema already documents account and the confirm gate. The description restates that confirm must be true but adds no format or meaning beyond what the schema says, so it sits at the baseline for partially documented params.

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+resource ('Delete Webhook Subscription') that is immediately distinguishable from the sibling webhook tools create_webhook, list_webhooks, and get_webhook. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_webhook or list_webhooks, nor does it state any exclusions. The confirm=true precondition is a call-time requirement, not usage guidance, so routing remains unaddressed.

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