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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered by structure. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the referential dependency on signature blocks and the required deletion order. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, which keeps it short of 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?

The destructive action and its scope come first, followed by a structured 'Use this tool when' block. The bulleted list holds a single item and the newline-wrapped sentences are a bit verbose, but nothing is misleading or wasted enough to penalize further.

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 delete tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the trigger, the discovery path (get-template-info), and the blocking dependency with its resolution tool. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing material is missing.

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%, so both UUIDs are already documented in the schema; the description's pointer to get-template-info largely restates the party_uuid field description. This is the baseline 3 — adequate, but no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a party from a template'), scoping it to templates as opposed to documents. An agent can distinguish it from delete-template-signature-block and delete-document-signatory from the text alone.

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 enumerates the trigger condition ('The user explicitly asks to remove a party from a template') and a hard precondition: parties with bound signature blocks cannot be deleted and must be cleared first. It names the exact alternative (delete-template-signature-block) for that prerequisite.

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