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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's key contribution is the word 'Soft-delete' – clarifying that records are retained and recoverable rather than purged, which materially changes agent behavior (e.g., a later get_template may still succeed). It stops short of saying what happens if the id does not exist or whether a response body is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation type and the identifying parameters, with no filler. The only blemish is the opaque/possibly misspelled 'seliee_template' token, which adds little for a reader.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (what, by what key, soft vs hard) but omits consequences an agent may need: effect on templates in use, whether the item disappears from list_templates, and error behavior for unknown ids. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and both parameters are nullable with no descriptions, so the description carries real weight by naming both keys and implying they are interchangeable lookups. It does not resolve the ambiguity the schema leaves open – whether at least one is required, or what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 ('Soft-delete') and resource (seliee_template) plus the two lookup keys, so an agent can immediately tell this is the template removal operation rather than edit_template or replace_template_text. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the verb is unique enough in context.

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?

'by `template_id` or `template_uuid`' implies the two keys are alternatives, but there is no guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus edit_template, no prerequisites, and no stated precondition that a template must not be in use. An agent gets no routing or cautionary context.

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