tokportal_delete_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the core behavioral traits are covered. However, the description adds no further context about side effects (e.g., impact on pending deliveries, required permissions) or what happens upon successful deletion. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add any meaningful behavioral insight.

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, concise sentence that gets directly to the point with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could potentially include a bit more context (like common return status) without losing conciseness.

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 simple delete operation with a single required parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return behavior (e.g., HTTP status code), error conditions, or any preconditions. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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' and 'idempotency_key') described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a webhook endpoint'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like tokportal_create_webhook_endpoint, tokportal_get_webhook_endpoint, and tokportal_update_webhook_endpoint.

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, such as when to delete versus update a webhook endpoint. No prerequisites or conditions (e.g., ensuring no pending deliveries) are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper selection among sibling webhook tools.

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