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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: existing proposals built from the template are NOT changed (cascade scope), the return value is `deleted`, and the required proposals.manage_templates permission. Those are exactly the facts an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then the safety-relevant side effect, then the permission and return value. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 a complete output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the only remaining risk is the blast radius of a destructive call, and the description addresses it by stating existing proposals are untouched. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely 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%, so template_id and template_kind are already fully documented in the schema, including the id source and the enum meanings. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

The description names a specific verb ('deletes') and resource ('a proposal template or section template from the library'), and the delete operation is unambiguous within a sibling set that otherwise contains only list/rename/duplicate/apply/save for templates. An agent can identify the tool's action without opening 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?

Usage is implicit rather than stated: nothing tells the agent when to prefer deletion over renaming or duplicating, nor when not to delete. The note that existing proposals are unaffected is behaviorally useful but not a when-to-use guideline, so this lands at the minimum-viable level.

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