Delete a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: it names the affected domains (delivery, audience membership, published data, irreversible state), the confirm gate, and the signing-secret handling (secrets redacted, new secrets written to a private local file). That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and the confirm requirement are front-loaded, and the impact/secret details follow in order of importance.

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 three-param destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and consequences adequately. It could go one step further by noting what the response returns or how this differs from the sibling delete_webhook 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 the account, confirm, and webhook_endpoint_id parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Delete) and resource (webhook endpoint) that matches the title, letting an agent distinguish it from CRUD siblings like update_webhook_endpoint or get_webhook_endpoint. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named delete_webhook sibling, leaving the scope boundary implicit.

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 states the confirm=true prerequisite and warns that use should follow a user-requested action, which is genuine usage guidance. It gives no context on when to choose this over delete_webhook or other endpoint tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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