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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying 'soft-delete' and the automation consequence, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the exact side effect.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the primary action and a key consequence efficiently.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a notable side effect. It lacks details on return value or error conditions, but these are not critical for a soft-delete tool and are partially covered by annotations.

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 the single 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining what id refers to. It does not mention id at all, leaving the agent to infer it is the email template id from context. This is a minimal gap given the obvious parameter name, but it still fails to compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 clearly states the verb (soft-delete) and resource (email template), and adds a distinguishing behavior: automations that used it cannot pick it for new actions. This makes it unambiguous compared to other delete tools like hires_delete_form or hires_delete_job.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., using update_email_template to disable instead of delete) or any prerequisites. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name.

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