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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the verb: no mention of irrevocability, what happens to campaigns/references using the template, or whether a confirmation flow exists. With annotations present the bar is lower but a destructive delete warrants more.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, zero waste. Appropriately sized for what it conveys, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

A destructive, 2-param tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema needs the description to carry param meaning and delete consequences; it provides none. Sibling ecosystem has prepare/confirm patterns that this tool doesn't reference.

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 the description explains neither template_id nor connection_context (the mctx_v1_ pattern context string). No param info at all, so the description fails to compensate for the total schema coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Delete a reusable Google ad template.' It is distinguishable from template_save/update/reverse_engineer siblings by the verb. Lacks detail about what 'reusable ad template' is, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this vs google_ads_template_update or template_save, no prerequisites, no confirmation-step mention despite siblings like approval_plan_* and *_confirm patterns existing. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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