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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial unannotated behavior: irreversibility ('It can't be undone'), a 30-day Meta name lock, the specific 409 error codes and their triggers, and the fact the lookup only scans the first 100 templates. This goes well beyond what the structured fields 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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope, then layers failure modes efficiently in a few dense sentences. Slightly heavy on stacked conditionals and the leading line repeats the title, which is minor 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?

No output schema exists, and for a destructive operation the description supplies the safety-critical context an agent needs: irreversibility, the name-lock acknowledgement requirement, and refusal conditions. It does not discuss return payload shape or pagination of the underlying template list, but little else 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%, so agent_id, template_id, connection_id and acknowledge_name_lock are already documented in the schema, including their 404/403 error mappings. The description reinforces acknowledge_name_lock's consequence but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a WhatsApp template') and immediately narrows scope: it deletes only one language version while the template's other languages remain. This distinguishes it cleanly from get_whatsapp_template, update_whatsapp_template and list_whatsapp_templates without needing their schemas.

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 strong operational conditions: approved/paused templates require acknowledge_name_lock=true, disabled templates cannot be deleted, and templates in active broadcast or used by notifications are refused with 409. It does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative (e.g. update_whatsapp_template to disable first), so it stops short of a 5.

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