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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond the annotations by scoping the blast radius: existing films made from the template are untouched, which tells the agent exactly what is NOT destroyed — a detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, scope caveat second — zero wasted words and well front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the text is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover destructiveness and non-idempotency. Combined with the blast-radius note, the agent has what it needs to call the tool; the only meaningful gap is that nothing states whether deletion is permanent or how to obtain the template id.

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 description coverage is 0% for template_id, and the description says nothing about how the template is identified or where the id comes from (e.g., list_storyboard_templates). A single obvious UUID identifier limits the damage, but the description does not compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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 ("Delete a template"), and the follow-up sentence about films started from it clarifies this is the storyboard template specifically, distinguishing it from delete_storyboard. It stops short of naming sibling delete tools (delete_recipe, delete_folder, delete_subject), so an agent must rely on the tool name for the rest of the disambiguation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as apply_storyboard_template, list_storyboard_templates, or delete_storyboard. The only implicit signal is that the template itself is removed while derived work is preserved, which is a side effect, not usage direction.

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