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. The description adds genuine value beyond that by scoping the blast radius (existing sent requests survive) and cost (free). It does not state whether deletion is permanent or restorable, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action first, then the blast-radius caveat, then the cost note. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is removed, what is preserved, and that it costs nothing. It could go slightly further by noting the response on success or how to confirm the template was removed.

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% and the single `template` parameter is documented in-schema with a format example. The description adds no naming, format, or slug-resolution detail, so the schema does all the work and 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a saved template"), which clearly separates it from the sibling list/save/send template tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

The note that already-sent requests are unaffected implicitly reassures an agent that deleting is safe for in-flight signing flows, and "Free" hints at no billing impact. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus esign_save_template or esign_list_templates, and no statement of prerequisites (ownership, published state).

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