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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context: the ownership requirement, the library-row restriction, and the HTTP endpoint mirror ('Mirrors DELETE /api/v1/templates/:id'). It stops short of stating that deletion is permanent/irreversible or what error occurs for a library/unknown ID.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key exception and endpoint reference. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers target, ownership, library exclusion, and API semantics. It lacks explicit failure/response behavior and permanence wording, but those are partially implied by 'DELETE'. Slightly more detail would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'by ID' ties the single parameter to the resource identity, and 'caller-owned' plus 'Library rows cannot be deleted' adds constraints on what that ID can represent. The schema only defines templateId as a string, so this is real added meaning.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a caller-owned template by ID.' It also draws a clear boundary with 'Library rows cannot be deleted,' which distinguishes this deletion operation from other template operations and tells the agent exactly what kind of template is in scope.

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 intended use is clear: delete a template that the caller owns, and do not attempt to delete library templates. It does not name an alternative tool, but deletion is unique among the siblings so an explicit alternative is unnecessary. A small gap is that it never states what to do instead for library rows.

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