tokportal_delete_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a dangerous, non-read operation. The description adds the idempotency key parameter, which hints at retry safety — but doesn't mention what actually gets destroyed (e.g., does it delete related deliveries as well?), or whether hitting the same endpoint twice with different IDs has side effects. Acceptable given annotations but no added depth.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loads the intent immediately. The imperative mood signals the action, and every token pulls weight. Structure is optimal for what it does.

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 delete tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and strong annotation hints (destructive/idempotent), the description is nearly complete. However, no output schema exists, so the agent gets no signal on what a successful delete returns — a note on this would push it to 4. It also doesn't verify whether the ID refers to the URL path parameter vs body ID, which matters in RESTful designs.

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% — both 'id' and 'idempotency_key' are documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero parameter context beyond that, but the schema covers the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate here since the description doesn't need to compensate for any coverage gaps while also adding no additional meaning like required-format or example values.

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?

The description 'Delete a webhook endpoint.' uses a specific verb-plus-resource structure with clear intent. It's brief but unambiguous; however, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'update_webhook_endpoint' or 'test_webhook_endpoint' — though the verb 'delete' makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention whether this is a hard delete, whether it requires confirmation, or how it relates to other webhook tools. Unlike the HIGH example that references alternatives like 'use search_calls_extensive instead,' this gives no context about effect of deleting an endpoint while deliveries might be in-flight.

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