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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the operation as 'Hard-delete' and 'Destructive', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also states the ownership requirement, which implies authentication. It doesn't detail side effects like whether related data is cascade-deleted, but for a delete operation, the destructive warning is the most important behavior and it is clearly disclosed. Not a full 5 because it could mention reversibility or impact on dependent resources, but the bar is met.

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 concise: two sentences plus a REQUIRED note and an example. It front-loads the most important information (hard-delete, destructive warning) and then provides the essential parameter requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler.

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-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, the destructive nature, the required parameter, and an example. The complexity is low, so this is complete. An agent has all the info needed to call it correctly and understand the risk.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly marks 'template_id' as REQUIRED and provides an example call. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, which only lists the parameter as a string. It could explain the format (e.g., UUID), but the example hints at that. Given the low coverage, this is strong compensation for a single param.

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 clearly states the action ('Hard-delete'), the resource ('existing saved template'), and the ownership constraint ('owned by the authenticated user'). It also mentions the Meta mirror, which adds specificity and distinguishes it from other template operations like templates_update or templates_create. This is a clear and specific purpose.

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?

The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and instructs to confirm with the user before calling, which is a strong usage guideline. It also marks 'template_id' as required and gives an example call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use templates_update or templates_delete_folder), but the clear purpose and destructive warning are sufficient.

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