subscription_templates_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether deletion is reversible, whether templates in use are affected, or what happens to associated tags.

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?

Three words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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, non-reversible mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description should say more about effect and irreversibility. The annotations cover the safety flag but not the operational consequences.

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 0% and the description never mentions the uuid parameter, its format, or that it identifies the template to remove. The single required parameter is undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (subscription template), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like subscription_templates_create, update, and set_tags. However, it adds no detail about scope or effect, so it sits below the top band.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus subscription_templates_update or other sibling mutations, and no prerequisites or warnings stated. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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