Delete a webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the confirm=true gate, the blast radius (delivery, audience membership, published data, irreversible state), and the non-obvious secret-handling behavior (response secrets redacted, new signing secrets written only to a private local file). The only gap is no statement about recoverability or required permissions.

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, each carrying distinct information: the action, the destructive scope plus the confirm gate, and the secret-handling side effect. The most decision-critical constraint (blast radius / confirm) is front-loaded after the action statement.

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 no output schema, the description covers preconditions, impact scope and side effects well. The one real omission is disambiguation from the near-named delete_webhook_endpoint sibling, which an agent needs before selecting this tool.

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 webhook_id, account and confirm are already documented, including the confirm semantics and the account resolution rules. The description's mention of 'Requires confirm=true' restates what the schema already says rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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'), so the action is unambiguous. However, the sibling list contains both delete_webhook_endpoint and delete_webhook, and the description never clarifies how a 'webhook' differs from a 'webhook endpoint', leaving an agent that must choose between the two without guidance.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('Requires confirm=true') and a caution about scope of impact, but never says when to reach for this tool versus delete_webhook_endpoint or the secret-rotation siblings. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no when-not guidance is offered.

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