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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required scope (pm_templates:write), which is genuinely useful auth context, but says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects, or whether deletion is blocked when schedules reference the template.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and resource front-loaded and the scope prerequisite trailing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the essentials plus the auth requirement. The one meaningful omission is the consequence of deleting a template still in use by schedules, but the core call path is fully specified.

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% with a single, well-documented 'id' parameter (uuid with a regex pattern). 'By ID' in the description merely restates what the schema already conveys, so the 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 and resource ('Delete a PM template by ID'), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_pm_schedule or delete_form_template. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the name plus resource is clear enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no preconditions beyond the scope requirement, and no note on what happens if the template is referenced by a PM schedule. The only usage-relevant statement is the required scope, which is an auth constraint rather than selection guidance.

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