Webform Handler Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real substance: it names the underlying API call, notes that the plugin's teardown runs, and scopes the blast radius ("the webform's other handlers are left alone"). It stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens with an invalid handler_id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then behavior. No filler, though the API-method name in backticks is arguably more implementation detail than the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the core effect is covered. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits safety-relevant context (irreversibility, permission needs, error behavior on an unknown handler_id).

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 0% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. In particular, the notable detail that webform_id is optional/nullable (default null) while handler_id is required is left entirely to the schema, so an agent gets no guidance on whether handler_id alone is sufficient to disambiguate the target.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ("Delete a webform handler from its webform") that is clearly distinguishable from the delete siblings webform_delete and webform_submission_delete, since it names the handler as the target. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with webform_handler_update/create.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description frames this as the canonical delete path ("the way Webform's own delete form does"), which suggests it is the handler-removal tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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