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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies 'hard-delete' (irreversible, no soft-delete/recovery), scopes the operation to templates owned by the authenticated user, and notes it mirrors the Meta API endpoint.

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?

Front-loads the action, follows with the destructive warning, then required params and a concrete call example. No filler sentences; every line carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers irreversibility, ownership scoping, and user-confirmation. The only gap is the undocumented connection_context parameter, which is minor given it appears to be standard transport context.

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% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents template_id as required with a type and a worked example, but says nothing about connection_context, leaving one parameter entirely undocumented.

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 ('hard-delete') and resource ('saved template') with an ownership scope, and distinguishes itself from the other templates_* siblings (create/get/list/update) without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to confirm with the user before calling, which is the key usage constraint for a destructive tool. It doesn't name alternatives (no other delete tool exists), so there is little else to route between, but it stops short of stating prerequisites such as ownership checks.

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