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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: Meta's name-reuse cooldown after deletion and a confirmation requirement. It omits auth/permission needs, but the key mutation side effect is well surfaced.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the pointer to the list tool, then the irreversible/naming caveat. No wasted words.

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 3-param tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the essential extra context (name cooldown, user confirmation). Minor gaps like failure behavior are acceptable given the structured fields carry the safety profile.

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 schema already documents name, accountId, and idempotencyKey fully. The description only restates 'by name' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Delete) plus resource (WhatsApp template), and clarifies the keying dimension ('by name'). Easily distinguished from sibling operations like deprecate_whatsapp_flow or delete_whatsapp_flow.

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_whatsapp_templates as the way to find the template and instructs the agent to confirm with the user first, which is meaningful guidance for a destructive op. It does not, however, contrast against the closest alternative (deprecate_whatsapp_flow), leaving that choice implicit.

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