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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known, yet the description adds the crucial detail that the first invocation writes nothing and returns a token requiring user approval. It also bounds the blast radius ('never deletes more than the template it reported') and discloses the disambiguation behavior for multi-language names — real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the safety protocol; minimal waste. Slight overlap between 'it works in two steps' and the following sentence explaining the same flow prevents a 5.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers scope, the confirmation protocol, and the response of the preview call (which template would be deleted plus a token). It leaves out permission/error conditions (e.g., what happens with an invalid or expired token), which a fully complete definition would mention.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema only implies: confirmToken's role as the second-step gate and the rule that language becomes necessary when the name exists in several languages. This earns a bump above baseline.

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 WhatsApp template, in one language, on one WhatsApp Business API number. This distinguishes it clearly from list_whatsapp_templates, create_whatsapp_template, and delete_whatsapp_file without needing the 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?

The two-step protocol gives strong operational guidance: first call without confirmToken merely previews, second call with the token performs the deletion. It also states the condition that triggers language resolution. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use list_whatsapp_templates to find the exact name/language first), which would have made it a 5.

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