Delete a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds important context beyond that: it is irreversible, the endpoint's events stop, live keys are refused, and explicit human confirmation is required. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 only three short sentences and front-loads the most important constraints: deletion, test-key restriction, irreversibility, and confirmation. Every sentence adds actionable value.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the crucial context: irreversibility, side effects on events, key restrictions, and the required confirmation workflow. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and confirm. The description reinforces the confirm workflow but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: deleting a webhook endpoint. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_webhook_endpoint and list_webhook_endpoints.

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?

It gives clear usage context: test keys only, live keys are refused, and a human must agree before calling with confirm true. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the destructive nature and key restriction make the intended context clear.

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