invoices_delete_estimate_template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the bare action—no mention of permanence, irreversibility, or impact on existing estimates. It relies entirely on annotations for safety cues and provides no extra value.

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 a single short phrase ('Delete Estimate Template'), which is concise but almost tautological. It does not waste words, but it is so minimal that it contributes little beyond the tool name itself. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation but lacks depth expected of a tool definition.

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 tool is a destructive operation (per annotations) with 3 parameters, but the description provides only the action and resource. It does not explain what an 'estimate template' is, why an agent might need to delete one, or any side effects. Given no output schema and minimal description, an agent has to infer usage entirely from the name and schema, which may be insufficient for a meaningful decision.

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 100%, so all parameters (templateId, altId, altType) already have descriptive entries. The description adds nothing about the parameters. Baseline is 3 because the schema covers the parameters fully; the description does not need to repeat them.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Estimate Template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoices_create_estimate_template and invoices_delete_estimate. The agent can immediately understand this deletes a template, not an actual estimate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this deletes a reusable template (as opposed to a specific estimate) or any conditions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from invoices_delete_invoice_template.

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