delete-webhook

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as destructive, and the description confirms what is destroyed (the webhook endpoint) and adds the HTTP method and required scope. It does not mention irreversibility or any side effects, but the annotation covers the main safety concern.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and packs the useful endpoint and scope information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive delete operation with no output schema, the description plus annotations is nearly sufficient. It could note the expected response or the irreversibility of the deletion, but these are minor omissions for a tool this simple.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter 'id' with type, bounds, and a description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Delete' and the exact resource ('a webhook endpoint'), and also spells out the HTTP method and path. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling webhook tools like get-webhook, update-webhook, and list-webhooks.

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 verb and endpoint unambiguously indicate this tool is for removing a webhook rather than creating, reading, or updating one. The scope requirement 'webhooks:write' also gives the agent a clear authorization context, though no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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