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

The description adds behavioral depth beyond the annotations, specifically clarifying the impact on dependent objects (draft/orders). This is a crucial detail for understanding the scope of the deletion's effect, making it more informative than the general 'destructiveHint'.

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 definition is highly concise, using only two short sentences. Every word is necessary, and the key behavioral constraint is front-loaded immediately after the action.

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 low complexity (2 parameters) and the presence of strong annotations (destructive/idempotent), the description provides the necessary operational safety context. It is nearly complete, although it does not specify the expected success/error response format.

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%, meaning the description is expected to compensate. However, it fails to provide any semantic meaning or context for the two required parameters, 'template_id' and 'idempotency_key,' making it functionally reliant on the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a template') and the target resource ('template'). While it does not explicitly compare itself against siblings like 'create_template' or 'get_template', the specific verb and context provide sufficient clarity.

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 a critical usage guideline by stating that 'Drafts and orders created from it are unchanged.' This is vital context that helps the agent determine if the deletion is safe for a specific user workflow.

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