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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond implying built-ins can be deleted, with no note on irreversibility, permissions, or whether reset is the intended path for built-in types.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 mutation with no output schema and entirely undocumented parameters, the description should clarify irreversibility, built-in vs custom behavior, and the two auxiliary parameters. It does not, leaving the agent materially under-informed before calling a deletion.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, and the description only partially compensates: it explains that email_type takes a built-in type or a custom template key, but says nothing about request_id or idempotency_key, whose purpose is entirely undocumented.

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 verb 'delete' is paired with the vague resource 'an email' rather than 'email template', so an agent can't immediately tell whether this removes a template definition or a sent message. The title 'Delete a custom email' and the sibling set (email_templates_reset, rollback, duplicate) leave the scope ambiguous.

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 says how to populate email_type but never says when to choose delete over the sibling alternatives, notably email_templates_reset for built-in types or rollback for customizations. No prerequisites or when-not guidance are given for a destructive operation.

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