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

The description explicitly says 'removes the saved definition,' which is inherently destructive, yet the annotation declares destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does disclose that runs are unaffected and requires auth/scope, but the destructive nature contradicts the annotation, warranting the lowest score.

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 description is four sentences, all purposeful. It front-loads the core action and ownership, then adds built-in exclusion, impact on runs, and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 it's a delete operation with an output schema, the description covers essential context: scope, ownership, impact on existing runs, and auth requirements. It doesn't explain the fingerprint parameter, but the schema does. It also doesn't mention failure conditions, which are presumably in the output schema. Overall, it is quite complete for the tool's complexity, though not flawless.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., slug and expected_template_fingerprint). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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), the resource (custom workflow template), and the ownership constraint (caller owns). It distinguishes from siblings like create_workflow_template and update_workflow_template by specifying that built-in templates cannot be deleted. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 clear usage context: only for custom templates owned by the caller, not built-ins. It also notes that runs already started are unaffected, giving insight into the impact. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the ownership and built-in exclusions effectively guide when to use this tool.

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