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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing permanence, the non-cascading effect on already-created projects, the prohibition on deleting starter templates, and the confirm-gated dry-run behavior. These are exactly the behavioral traits 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?

One compact sentence with the destructive action front-loaded, followed by the two side-effect caveats and the confirm requirement in parentheses. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything missing: irreversibility, blast radius, restricted targets, and the confirm gate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 confirm semantics are already documented in the schema; the description restates them but adds a constraint on templateId (starters cannot be deleted) that the schema's terse 'A saved template of the user' does not convey. Baseline would be 3, lifted slightly by that added eligibility constraint.

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 a saved template) and immediately scopes the effect: projects made from the template are untouched, and starter templates cannot be deleted. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like delete_card_template, delete_sample_project, and archive_* operations 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?

Clearly conveys the calling context: this is the tool for removing a saved template, and it requires confirm: true or the call only produces a preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., list_project_templates for discovery, or rename_project_template), but the confirm/preview gate gives concrete guidance on how to invoke it safely.

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