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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is declared; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — that deleting does not affect cadences because content was copied into their steps. It stops short of stating irreversibility or that existing sequences keep functioning only if they were previously used.

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, with the action stated first and the side-effect caveat following. The emoji-prefixed library label is minor decoration but does not obscure the content.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential question an agent has (what collateral damage results) plus the resource scope. Missing only explicit permanence/recovery information.

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 100% and both parameters (template_id, target_user_id) are documented there, including where to obtain the ID and the admin-only restriction. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Apaga') plus resource ('um template da biblioteca'), and the 'BIBLIOTECA DE TEMPLATES DE E-MAIL' header makes the resource unambiguous against siblings like delete_quick_reply or delete_whatsapp_template.

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?

Implies when to use it (removing a template from the library) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no pointer to update_email_template as the alternative for modification, and no prerequisites for the admin-only target_user_id path.

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