zadig_build_template_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose two key behaviors: it defaults to dry_run=true and requires confirm=true. However, it does not explain what dry_run actually returns, whether deletion is reversible, what happens if the template is referenced elsewhere, or what the response indicates.

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 very short and front-loads the action and safety-critical defaults, so it earns high marks for economy. The wording 'store template' is grammatically awkward, which prevents a perfect score.

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 deletion tool with four optional-looking parameters and no annotations, essential invocation context is missing: the agent is not told how to identify the target (template_id vs template_name) or what distinguishes a dry run from an actual deletion in the response. The output schema may cover return format, but the parameter selection logic remains underspecified.

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%, so the description had to compensate, but it only explains the confirm and dry_run roles by stating defaults/requirements. It does not clarify whether template_id or template_name is sufficient, which one takes precedence, or whether either is needed.

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 names a specific action (Delete) and resource (build template / store template), which is enough to distinguish it from build_template_update, build_template_create, and the list/search siblings. The phrase 'store template' is slightly awkward, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as build_template_update for modifying a template or build_template_apply for applying changes. The destructive intent is implicit in the verb and name, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are stated.

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