tokportal_delete_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already provide helpful hints: destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'Delete a webhook endpoint'. However, with these annotations, the bar is lower, and the description doesn't contradict them. A 4 is appropriate because the annotations cover the safety profile well, and the description is consistent.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be considered under-specified for a destructive tool (e.g., no mention of reversibility or cascading effects), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that declare destructiveness and idempotency, the description is minimally complete. It sets expectations for what happens (deletion) but doesn't cover consequences (e.g., are related deliveries affected?), return values, or confirmation behavior. Acceptable but leaves gaps for a destructive operation.

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%, with both parameters (id: UUID, idempotency_key: optional string) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail. Per rules, baseline is 3 since schema coverage is high, and no extra value is provided in the description.

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 clearly states 'Delete a webhook endpoint' with a specific verb (Delete) and resource (webhook endpoint). While it differentiates from sibling tools like tokportal_create_webhook_endpoint and tokportal_get_webhook_endpoint, it doesn't clarify whether this deletes a single endpoint by ID only, which leaves a slight question about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are several webhook-related tools (create, get, update, list, test), but no exclusions or context for when deletion is appropriate. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., endpoint must exist) or when not to use it.

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