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 earns credit by disclosing a genuinely non-obvious side effect: pushes already sent from the template are unaffected — information not present in the annotations or schema. Missing only details like whether the name must exist or what happens on a repeat call beyond the idempotent hint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the key downstream consequence (existing pushes preserved). A brief note on error behavior for a nonexistent name would make it 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% and the single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes 'by name' without adding format, case-sensitivity, or match rules, so it meets the baseline 3 without adding value.

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 and resource ('Delete a template') plus the lookup key ('by name'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_template, save_template, and list_templates. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 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?

The delete verb implies usage, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use save_template instead to modify' guidance, and no mention of prerequisites or warnings before calling. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the when/when-not.

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