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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful detail: deletion is permanent, the stored configuration is gone, and existing Studies and drafts survive. It also discloses the ownership restriction, going well beyond what the annotation alone conveys.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of useful context: permanence, side effects on derived resources, and ownership constraints.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is deleted, what is not affected, and who is allowed to delete, leaving no important ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already documents templateId with 100% coverage, including that it is the template to delete permanently and owner-only. The description does not add new param-specific detail, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: permanently deletes a saved Study template owned by the authenticated user. It clearly distinguishes this from management or listing operations, even without naming a sibling.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: only the owner's templates can be deleted)Skip, and shared-access teammates cannot delete templates they do not own. It also clarifies that existing studies and drafts are unaffected, which helps an agent reason about when this action is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives, but the ownership and side-effect information is sufficient for basic routing.

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