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 valuable non-obvious behavioral context: deletion propagates to both Meta and Postproxy, the language parameter controls whether one variant or all languages are destroyed, and deleted names are locked from reuse for 30 days on Meta. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or permission requirements, keeping it just below the top score.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value—external scope, language-variant behavior, and the name reuse lockout—with no filler.

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 delete tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential operational semantics and a key external consequence. It does not discuss return behavior or error/permission cases, but no output schema exists and annotations already signal the destructive nature, so it is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the schema's language behavior (variant vs. all languages) and name-addressing consequence, but adds no syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 resource (WhatsApp template), plus the external systems affected (Meta and Postproxy). The action is inherently distinct from sibling update/create/get tools, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance by explaining the effect of including or omitting the language parameter and warning about the 30-day name reuse restriction. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool versus alternatives or states prerequisites, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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