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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the exact effect of deletion (revert to channel/message-type default) and the authentication requirement, which an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect in one tight sentence; the ACCESS paragraph is separated and scannable. The auth note is slightly verbose but earns its place as an operational prerequisite.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the effect, the auth prerequisite, and the parameter-driven default. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens if no custom template exists) and reversibility, which would make it fully 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 schema already documents channel, message_type, and profile_id (including the omitted-profile default behavior). The description only frames that the default is determined by channel and message type, adding marginal meaning over the schema.

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+resource ('delete ... custom template') and adds the consequential effect (reverting the project to the default template for the channel and message type). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_template, get_template, and list_templates.

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 a concrete prerequisite for use: a Proof account with an authenticated client, and explicitly notes that start_login does NOT open this tool (a useful exclusion that prevents a wrong path). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for modifying vs. removing templates, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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