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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing exactly what is destroyed and what survives (pages fall back to post-type default, header/footer global blocks stay), the refusal behavior, and the force override. This is unusually rich for a delete tool.

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 destructive action and its consequences in one dense sentence, then the refusal/force semantics, then the prerequisite rule. Every clause carries information, though the skill-doc rule adds a second call the agent must remember.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and the description still notes the answer explains the refusal reason. Preconditions, irreversibility, and override are all covered for a destructive 2-param tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both force and templateId, including the reference conditions force overrides. The description restates force's effect rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a site template") and immediately flags irreversibility, which distinguishes it cleanly from the many other delete-* siblings by resource type.

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?

States the precondition clearly (refused while anything still points at it) and the escape hatch (force:true to delete anyway), plus a prerequisite to read the template-contract skill doc first. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the when-to-use condition is explicit.

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