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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description still adds substantial context: deletion is permanent, ownership is required, and Studies/drafts created from the template are unaffected. The downstream-impact disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the scoping constraint before the mechanics. Slight redundancy in stating the ownership restriction twice (once tied to the authenticated user, once tied to shared-access teammates), but every sentence still carries usable information.

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-value explanation is not needed. For a destructive single-param tool, the description covers permanence, ownership/authorization, and side-effect scope on derived Studies and drafts — nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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% and the single param already carries 'Template to delete permanently. Owner only.', so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying the ownership constraint to the authenticated user and to the teammate-sharing case, which clarifies the authorization model rather than just restating the param.

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 and resource ('Permanently deletes one template') and immediately scopes it with 'Only for saved Study templates', explicitly excluding Studies, Audiences, Minds and answers. An agent can distinguish this from manage_study_template and list_study_templates without opening any schema.

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 clear exclusions ('it cannot delete Studies, Audiences, Minds or answers') and a prerequisite ('owned by the authenticated user', teammates with shared access cannot delete). It does not name a sibling alternative for template modification, but the when/when-not boundary is otherwise explicit.

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