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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing the destructive nature. The description adds a specific behavioral condition—'refused if it is the default'—which is not in the annotations and is valuable for the agent to know before invoking. It does not contradict annotations and provides a meaningful operational detail.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and the critical constraint (default refusal) are both front-loaded, making it immediately actionable for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, a clear destructive action, and an output schema (not shown but indicated). The description covers identification (ID) and a key edge case (default refusal). No additional context is needed for a correct invocation.

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%: the id parameter is described as 'Template ID (from list_email_templates)'. The description's 'by ID' reinforces this but adds no new information beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description meets the baseline but does not elevate 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 verb (Delete) and resource (email template), and identifies the ID as the key parameter. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools like delete_email_sender by specifying 'email template', and the parenthetical 'refused if it is the default' adds a unique constraint that further clarifies scope.

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 implies the tool is for deleting email templates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as archiving or updating. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like set_default_email_template for context. The default-refusal note is a behavioral constraint, not usage guidance.

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