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

Beyond the annotations' destructive hint, the description reveals that deletion is actually a soft archive by default, that `permanent=true` removes the template and its associated data, and that the operation requires `templates:manage` scope. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the key behavioral option and operational context. Some sentences, such as the OpenAPI mapping and the generic API/rate-limit note, are slightly redundant with sibling context, but they earn their place by reinforcing correct invocation.

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 operation with only one required parameter, the description covers the operation path, auth scope, default behavior, permanent-deletion behavior, and guardrail against invented paths. It doesn't describe the response format or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple parameter set, the description is sufficiently complete for correct 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic distinction between archiving and permanent deletion and emphasizing that permanent deletion affects associated data, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('template'), the verb ('Delete'), and the two behavioral modes (soft archive vs permanent deletion). It also maps to a specific OpenAPI operation and endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling operations like updateTemplate or publishTemplate.

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 explicit contextual guidance: soft-deletes by default, and tells the agent to use `permanent=true` for permanent deletion. It also states the required scope (`templates:manage`) and cautions against inventing other paths. It doesn't explicitly name when to prefer an alternative sibling, but for a delete operation the provided context is clear enough.

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