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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive nature and indicates a soft-delete behavior, which adds value. However, it does not explain what soft-delete means, whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the warning immediately following. Every word contributes meaning without filler.

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 mutation with one parameter, the description still leaves important gaps: what the id refers to, what soft-delete implies, and what response the agent should expect. With no annotations or output schema, this is insufficient context for confident invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the id parameter at all. The agent must infer from the tool name that id refers to a template identifier. No format, source, or validation guidance is provided for the only parameter.

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 states a specific operation ('soft-delete') and resource ('EMAIL template'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sms_templates_delete or email_templates_update. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 only guidance is 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm first,' which is a caution rather than usage direction. The description does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as email_templates_update or email_templates_list, nor does it mention conditions where deletion should be avoided.

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