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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still earns credit for two things the annotations do not say: that all versions are removed along with the template, and that a referencing workflow api_call fails cleanly at run time. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements or whether the template must be unpublished first, which would be needed for a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the irreversibility and the downstream consequence. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries new information.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the response, the description only needs to explain scope and consequences, which it does well (all versions, irreversible, breaks referencing api_calls). The one real gap is preconditions/permissions for a destructive, non-idempotent operation, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

There is a single required string parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already tells the agent everything ("the api template id to delete"). The description adds no format, sourcing hint (e.g., get it from list_api_templates), or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete an api template") and adds the cascading scope ("and all its versions"), which tells an agent exactly what this removes. Against siblings like delete_app or delete_workflow, the resource noun is unambiguous, and against unpublish_api_template the word 'Permanently' does the differentiating work.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'call this when you want the template gone for good' from 'Permanently delete' and 'Cannot be undone'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative (e.g., unpublish_api_template or update_api_template to retire without destroying), and no precondition such as the template needing to be unpublished first.

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