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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: what survives the deletion (invoice records and generated files remain), that confirmation is required, and the concrete five-minute token lifespan. Crucially it resolves the tension between the name ('delete') and readOnlyHint by clarifying it does not apply the change.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then what remains, then the confirmation requirement, then the token/return. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 mutation-preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive scope, survivor data, confirmation requirement, and return (preview + token). Only the identifier parameter is unaddressed, a minor gap given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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 0% and the single template_id parameter is never mentioned in the description. 'Exact configuration template' hints that a specific template is targeted but adds no meaning about the identifier itself, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific action on a specific resource: preparing to permanently remove a configuration template, and explicitly notes it returns a preview and token without applying the change. The preview-vs-apply distinction is clear, though the sibling delete_export_template is not named, leaving the agent to infer the pairing from the token flow.

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?

'Requires confirmation' plus the five-minute token and 'does not apply the change' define the intended workflow: preview here, then confirm via the real delete. It stops short of explicitly naming delete_export_template as the alternative, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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