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 already carried structurally. The description still earns credit by adding what actually gets destroyed (the single language or every language sharing that name) and the external side effect that the name cannot be reused for a period — details annotations cannot express. It omits permission requirements and failure behavior.

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 well-constructed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scope rule and caveat appended via an em dash. Slightly dense, but every clause carries information.

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?

With annotations covering the destructive/non-idempotent profile and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover scope and side effects — both of which it does, including the name-reuse lockout. Missing only auth/permission expectations and the not-found case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% (all three parameters are documented), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the language-omission semantics that the schema already specifies, adding no new syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond 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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus specific resource (WhatsApp Business message template) and a stated scope boundary: one language, or every language of the name when language is omitted. This distinguishes it cleanly from wa_create_template and wa_list_templates without needing 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?

The description communicates the operative condition (include language to delete one, omit it to delete all) and a non-obvious consequence of calling it (Meta blocks reuse of the name for a while), which is real usage context. It does not, however, point to alternatives such as listing templates first or note any preconditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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