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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it states that built-in templates are refused, that existing cards keep their rules, that only the name is retired for future use, and that deletion is blocked while the name is a standing default. The only minor omission is explicit irreversibility or permission requirements, but 'delete' plus the stated constraints already disclose the essential side effects.

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 deliver the main action, the built-in-name refusal, and two important behavioral caveats without wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by preventing a likely misuse.

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 operation with an output schema available, the description covers the required input, refusal conditions, and side-effect scope. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect regarding existing cards and standing defaults.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's 'The saved preset name to delete.' It clarifies that valid names come from save_preset, that built-in names are invalid inputs, and that names still used as standing defaults will be refused. This gives an agent practical validation criteria the schema alone does not provide.

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: 'Delete a preset you saved (from save_preset)', which clearly identifies this as the inverse operation to save_preset and distinct from list_presets or set_card_preset. It further distinguishes saved presets from built-in template names, so an agent can select this tool unambiguously.

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 gives clear conditions for use and refusal: it only applies to presets you saved, refuses built-in template names, and is refused while a card still inherits the name as a standing default. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use list_presets to find valid names', but the exclusion conditions effectively guide when this tool should and should not be called.

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