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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses the 30-day retention window, the purgeAt permanent removal point, and that rendered emails and share links are unaffected. It also documents the confirmation preview flow and the not_found cross-workspace case, which is exactly the side-effect and error context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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-loaded with the core action and lifecycle, then side effects, then the confirmation behavior. Five dense sentences with little filler, though the rendered-emails/share-link sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive mutation, the description covers retention, revert path, collateral effects, confirmation preconditions, and the error case. Nothing material is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the two-step confirmation model ('asks the person to confirm before it acts') that gives meaning to the confirm/confirmationToken pair beyond their field descriptions. It also states what the preview shows, which the schema does not.

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 verb and resource ('Deletes an email template') and immediately clarifies the soft-delete lifecycle, so the agent can distinguish it from a hard purge. It does not explicitly contrast with lnkdrp_archive_email_template or lnkdrp_discard_email_template_draft, which are the nearest ambiguous siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It names lnkdrp_list_deleted and lnkdrp_restore_email_template, but as descriptions of the aftermath rather than as alternatives for the agent to choose between. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance, so the agent must infer when deletion is preferred over archiving.

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