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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value beyond that by stating the deletion is permanent, covers all languages, and returns nothing. This gives the agent a concrete understanding of the impact and result, which is not fully captured by the annotations alone.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The critical consequences (permanence, all languages, confirmation) are front-loaded, and the return behavior is clearly stated. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with one parameter, the description covers all necessary context: the effect on both systems, the irreversibility, the confirmation requirement, and the absence of a return value. With no output schema, this is fully sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (template_id) with a clear reference to list_templates. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the action (permanently delete), the resource (message template), and the scope (from WhatsApp Business Account and DripRaven). It also distinguishes from siblings like update_template or sync_templates by focusing solely on deletion. The mention of removing all languages adds specificity.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before calling due to irreversibility. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough (deletion vs. update/create) that the usage context is clear. The confirmation step is a strong, actionable guideline.

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