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

Adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it specifies the exact consequences (removal from lists/sending), guarantees content preservation, and notes idempotency ('calling it again is harmless'), which tempers the destructive hint without contradicting it.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: first sentence names the action, second describes effects and caveats. The bilingual duplication (German and English) is redundant for an agent but not excessive, keeping the description efficient.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and consequences (what disappears, what remains, idempotency). It doesn't mention reversibility or return values, but these are less critical given the clear behavioral outline.

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 description provides no parameter-level guidance. With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain the optional 'reasoning' parameter or confirm the role of 'templateId' beyond what the schema already shows, so it doesn't compensate for the sparse schema.

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 ('Archives a template') and immediately explains the effect ('disappears from lists and from sending but is kept'), which clearly distinguishes it from deletion or other template mutations among the many template_* siblings.

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 context for when to use it—when a template should stop being listed and sendable but remain available—yet does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, so the guidance is context-based rather than comparative.

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