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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by disclosing the 409 refusal path when triggers or sequence steps still reference the template, that the response lists the blocking triggers, and that the action is irreversible. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking an irreversible mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, then the failure behavior. No filler and nothing redundant.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the intended trigger condition, the failure mode, and the recovery path, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly unaddressed.

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 template_id (uuid) param is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by UUID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete an email template') with the identifier type (UUID), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like meisa_delete_template_block, meisa_delete_trigger, and meisa_delete_sequence.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the user wants to clean up unused or obsolete templates') and names alternatives (meisa_update_trigger, meisa_delete_trigger) for the blocking case. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. versus deleting a single template block, so no explicit exclusion is present.

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