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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the '[DESTRUCTIVE]' tag is redundant, but the description adds real context beyond them: drafts started from the format retain their text, and a human-confirmation step is required. It does not disclose error/not-found behavior, but the added behavioral detail is valuable.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but wastes space on a doubled warning ('[DESTRUCTIVE] DESTRUCTIVE:') and a parenthetical REST-path note that adds little for an agent. The redundancy dilutes rather than strengthens the message.

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 simple one-param delete with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing pieces: the side effect on drafts and the confirmation requirement. Adequate, though permission requirements and failure modes are absent.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description gives no semantics for 'id' at all. The parameter is self-evident as the template identifier, but the description does nothing to compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('deletes a format'), which clearly maps to the delete_text_template sibling and distinguishes it from create/get/list/update_text_template by verb. Minor friction: the description calls it a 'format' while siblings and the API path say 'text-template', and it names no sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an important usage directive ('Ask the user before calling'), which is genuine guidance for a destructive action. However, it offers no routing advice versus alternatives and no prerequisites (e.g., required permission level), so usage context is only implied.

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