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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and characterises it as a 'soft-delete,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what 'soft-delete' means in practice (e.g., reversibility, impact on existing references) or what response to expect.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a relevant destructiveness warning. It wastes no words, though it is minimal enough to border on under-specification. Still, for a one-parameter tool, the length is reasonable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description conveys the essential action and risk but leaves gaps: it does not explicitly state where the 'id' should come from, what 'soft-delete' entails, or what a successful call returns. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has a single required 'id' string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly document this parameter; it only implies by context that 'id' identifies the SMS template. At 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying parameter semantics, which it fails to do.

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 verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a SMS template.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and adds the meaningful qualifier 'soft-delete.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., email_templates_delete) beyond the resource name, so it does not earn a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The warning 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm first' is a caution about how to invoke it, not a usage selection criterion. No sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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