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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the conditional side effect: promoting another default when the deleted template was the default. This is relevant behavioral context that an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the optional conditional detail in the second sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential domain-specific behavior (default promotion). It does not specify error cases or behavior when no default exists, but these are not critical for a simple delete operation and are partially covered by annotations.

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 input schema already provides a complete description for the single 'id' parameter ('Unique numeric identifier for the share template'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear, specific operation: 'Remove a share template' and adds a distinctive conditional detail about promoting another default when the deleted row was default. This precisely identifies the resource and behavior, distinguishing it from other delete tools and from listShareTemplates.

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?

Usage is implied by the imperative 'Remove a share template' and the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions. The sibling list contains no other share-template deletion tool, so this gap is minor but still present.

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