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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a lot: soft-delete semantics, the ownership authorization requirement, disappearance from list_user_templates, loss of AI referenceability, and that existing drafted documents are unaffected. It still omits reversibility/restore behavior and any response/error semantics.

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-loads the core action and its soft-delete nature, then layers the authorization constraint and side-effect scope. Every clause adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral surface (ownership, listing, AI reference, existing documents). The main residual gaps are parameter-level detail and success/error behavior.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It supplies no format or meaning for template_id and does not explain the authorization parameter (anyOf string/null), beyond an indirect hint that owner authorization is required.

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 ('Soft-deletes the template') and goes beyond the name by marking it as a soft delete and naming the sibling it affects (list_user_templates). An agent can tell exactly what happens and how it differs from a hard delete.

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 usage context: only the owner (user or organization) may call it, and it removes the template from listing and AI reference. However it names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition, so there is room beyond straightforward context.

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