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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description substantially enriches this by explaining the soft-delete mechanism, the irreversible nature of permanent deletion, and that it removes associated data. It also adds scope, OpenAPI mapping, and shared billing/rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and soft-delete behavior, followed by scope, API mapping, and a caution not to invent paths. Each sentence carries distinct information with no meaningful filler. The 'Same PassFast HTTP API, billing, and rate limits' line is slightly generic but still useful context.

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?

The description covers deletion modes, side effects, required scope, and API mapping. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but with no output schema and destructive annotations already present, this is a minor gap for a three-parameter delete endpoint. Overall adequate for safe invocation.

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% and all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds the behavioral nuance of 'marking it as archived' and the `permanent=true` toggle, but this largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not add meaning for `id` or `x_app_id` beyond what the schema already explains.

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') and resource ('template') and explains the two modes: soft-delete by default and permanent delete with `permanent=true`. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for other resources (deleteApiKey, deleteApp, deleteCertificate) and from template management tools like updateTemplate.

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?

Provides clear conditional usage: default soft-delete, use `permanent=true` for permanent deletion. It also specifies the required permission scope and the exact OpenAPI path, which helps route correctly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource-specific name and behavior make the target use obvious.

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