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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is permanent, that execution is gated behind confirmation, and, critically, the blast radius (existing client plans derived from the template are unaffected). It omits permission/auth requirements, idempotency, and error behavior for a nonexistent id.

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 with zero filler; the destructive nature and gating are front-loaded and the side-effect clarification follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema delete, the description covers permanence, confirmation gating, and non-destructive scope. It is nearly complete, though it could note the absence of a return payload or the effect on marketplace listings set via set_diet_plan_template_marketplace.

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 coverage is only 50%: the schema fully documents 'confirm' (including the preview-only behavior of false/omitted) but leaves 'id' with no description. The description's '(confirm-gated)' merely restates what the schema already says about confirm and adds nothing about the id's expected format or reference source.

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?

Names a precise verb+resource ('delete a diet plan template') and adds the permanence qualifier. The second sentence separates it from the sibling delete_diet_plan by stating that already-assigned plans are untouched, so an agent can pick the right destructive tool without opening a 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 '(confirm-gated)' note implies the two-step preview-then-execute flow, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to deactivate or update instead, or what preconditions must hold). Usage is only implied by the tool name and the confirm hint.

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