Delete a tenant notification template. Returns 204 on success, 404 if the template does not exist for this tenant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_id | Yes | The tenant ID that owns the template | |
| template_id | Yes | The notification template ID to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the description needs to add context beyond that. It does add the HTTP response semantics (204 on success, 404 if the template does not exist for this tenant), which is useful but does not discuss irreversibility or permission requirements.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides the most relevant response outcomes. Every clause earns its place with zero 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 simple two-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential call semantics and expected success/failure statuses. The absent details, such as authentication requirements or broader error codes, are not critical given the low complexity and strong schema coverage.
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 parameter descriptions already fully explain tenant_id and template_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('tenant notification template'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling deletes like delete_tenant and delete_tenant_preference by naming the exact entity type.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archive_notification or replace_tenant_template. The description states only what the tool does, not under what conditions an agent should choose it or avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly organized as distinct resource/action pairs, but several clusters are easy to confuse: list subscription tools (add_subscribers_to_list vs bulk_subscribe_to_list vs subscribe_user_to_list), message vs message-content vs message-history retrieval, and the many journey/journey-template list/get tools. Detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but the sheer number of near-identical verb/resource names creates real misselection risk.
Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, replace_, send_, publish_, archive_). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: courier_installation_guide is noun-first, and add_bulk_users sits awkwardly next to the bulk_add_* family, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
144 tools is an extreme working-set size for an agent to hold and choose from, far beyond the reasonable 3–15 range. Even for a broad platform like Courier, this should be split into focused sub-servers (templates, journeys, users, lists, preferences, etc.) to remain usable.
The surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering sending, templates, journeys, automations, users, tenants, lists, preferences, providers, routing, brands, audiences, translations, digests, bulk jobs, and audit events. Notable gaps exist—automation template CRUD and digest schedule management are missing—but most workflows can still be completed with workarounds.
