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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond structured fields by disclosing the downstream consequence — dependent workflow steps will fail until a replacement template is assigned. It does not say whether deletion is reversible or whether in-use templates are blocked, which keeps it at 4.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the key risk and the required prerequisite check. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and behavior when the template is actively used, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 the 'confirm' parameter is well documented in-schema (must be true only after explicit user approval). The description's only added signal is the instruction to confirm with the user first, which mildly reinforces the confirm parameter but adds no format or id-value detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Delete') and a precisely scoped resource ('one of the user's email or SMS templates'), which implicitly but clearly separates it from the sibling deleters spur_delete_letter_template and spur_delete_postcard_template. An agent can pick this tool without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete pre-flight procedure: check spur_list_workflows and confirm with the user before deleting. That is a clear usage context plus a named dependency tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or guidance on choosing between deleting vs. updating a template.

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