invoices_delete_invoice_template

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as permanence, cascading effects, or authentication requirements. Since the description carries no behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations already state, it fails to add 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 two words, which is not concise but under-specified. It lacks any informative content and does not earn its place; it could be entirely removed without loss, as the tool name and schema already convey the core action. Extremely low information density.

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 action with three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the effect (e.g., permanently removes the template) and any constraints (e.g., cannot delete if used in invoices). It provides none of this, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly judge consequences or prerequisites.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema already documents each field (templateId, altId, altType) and their purpose, the base score is appropriate. No extra semantic value is contributed by the description.

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 'Delete template' is a generic restatement of the tool name, which already specifies 'invoices_delete_invoice_template'. It does not clarify that this deletes an invoice template specifically, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like invoices_delete_invoice or invoices_delete_estimate_template. It is a tautology rather than an explanation of the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the template must not be in use, nor any conditions that would make a different delete tool more appropriate. The description is completely silent on usage context.

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