ghost_delete_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a webhook,' which implies mutation but does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, may require permissions, or what happens on failure or nonexistent IDs. This is a destructive operation lacking caveats, similar to the update_drive calibration example that scored 2.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, with no wasted words. It loses one point because it omits any behavioral context that could have been added without bloat.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the basic operation adequately. However, it lacks critical contextual details such as the irreversibility of deletion, permission requirements, or response behavior. For a destructive action, this is a notable gap.

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 already thoroughly documents the sole parameter 'id' with description 'Webhook ID to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'by ID,' which aligns with the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 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 clearly specifies the action (delete), the resource (webhook), and the identifier (by ID). It also scopes to 'Ghost CMS', which distinguishes it from other delete tools in the sibling list like ghost_delete_tag or ghost_delete_post. The purpose is unambiguous and directly distinguishes it from webhook create/list siblings.

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 implies the tool is for removing a specific webhook, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID), or when not to use it. However, the resource-specific naming makes the intended context reasonably clear, so it earns a baseline score rather than a failing one.

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