scf_delete_webhook

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: this is a soft-delete, the endpoint is marked inactive, future deliveries return 403, the record is retained for audit, and admin role is required. This fully informs the agent of the operational consequences.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently conveys soft-delete behavior, permissions, delivery impact, and audit retention. Every clause adds useful information with no waste.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what action is performed, what happens to future deliveries, why the record persists, and who can perform it. The schema fully documents parameters, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, with both org_id and endpoint_id documented including how to obtain them. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Revoke') and resource ('webhook endpoint'), and clarifies the soft-delete semantics that distinguish it from a hard delete. It clearly differentiates this from sibling webhook tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, and rotate_webhook_secret by the action of revoking.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you need to revoke a webhook endpoint so it stops receiving deliveries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the destructive-write and admin-role notes provide enough contextual guidance for an agent.

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