wa_delete_template

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

Despite empty annotations, the description discloses all critical behavioral traits: irreversible deletion, removal of all languages, and the need for user confirmation. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 extremely concise, with a clear warning upfront, a short 'When to use' section, and a final irreversibility note. Every sentence adds value, and nothing is redundant.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context for a destructive delete operation: what gets deleted, that it is irreversible, and that user confirmation is required before invoking. It is complete for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description including the 'all languages' note for 'name'. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Delete a message template') and scope ('from a WABA by name'), and explicitly warns that ALL languages are deleted. It is well differentiated from siblings like wa_create_template and wa_get_templates.

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?

Provides a clear 'When to use' statement ('removing obsolete or rejected templates') and emphasizes irreversibility with a user-confirmation requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, so it misses the full 5 criteria.

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