Delete Yolfi Webhook Endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety baseline is set. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that delivery history is lost/destroyed by deletion and is the deciding factor for choosing disable instead. It does not restate the irreversibility or auth requirements beyond that.

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 19-word sentence that front-loads the destructive action and then the retention caveat. No filler, nothing to trim.

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, idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and fully documented params, the description supplies the one thing annotations cannot: the data-retention tradeoff. Minor gap: it never references the mandatory user confirmation step, relying on the schema for that.

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% and both parameters (id, confirm) are already documented, including the 'only after explicit user confirmation' constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (webhook endpoint), which clearly separates it from siblings like yolfi_webhooks_update, yolfi_webhooks_configure and yolfi_webhooks_rotate_secret. The added clause 'or disable it when existing delivery history must be retained' slightly blurs whether this tool itself disables, since the schema exposes no disable flag.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional: delete only 'unused' endpoints, and prefer the disable path when delivery history must be preserved – a real pre-call decision criterion. It stops short of naming the sibling that performs the disable (likely yolfi_webhooks_update), so the agent must still infer the alternative tool.

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