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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations: pages revert to the standard layout, the response reports which pages changed, and the underlying records survive. That is valuable side-effect disclosure a schema could not convey.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then the side effect, then the reassuring non-effect on records. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the response reports ('the answer says which' pages reverted). Side effects, scope, and record preservation are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing for a 2-parameter destructive tool.

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 both parameters are already documented ('Project ID (from list_projects)', 'From list_record_templates'). The description restates the template_id provenance but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Remove ONE record template') with the singular 'ONE' explicitly distinguishing it from bulk siblings like delete_few_records and delete_records_by_filter. It also pins the identifier source to list_record_templates, so an agent knows exactly which tool supplies the template_id.

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?

Points to list_record_templates as the source of template_id, which implicitly tells the agent the correct workflow ordering. It does not, however, contrast this against sibling alternatives such as update_record_template or delete_template, so the 'when not to use' guidance is absent.

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