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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive nature and the ownership restriction. However, it omits the safety profile that matters for a delete: whether deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, and how errors surface for nonexistent or non-owned IDs.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: action, constraint, and API correspondence in that order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines scope and the key restriction. A brief note on irreversibility or failure behavior would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema itself explains the slug-vs-UUID distinction, so the description need not add parameter detail. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Delete a caller-owned template by ID') with an added scope constraint ('Library rows cannot be deleted') that no sibling covers — none of the nine siblings performs deletion, so the tool is unambiguous. The API-endpoint mapping further pins the semantics.

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 gives one exclusion ('library rows cannot be deleted'), which is a useful when-not rule, but offers no positive when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as update_template or save_template. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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