delete_profile_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and goes beyond the bare action by explaining the deletion effect (revert to default) and the required authentication state. It does not explicitly say whether deletion is permanent, but 'delete' plus the revert behavior makes the destructive nature clear enough for an agent.

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 compact, front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, and the ACCESS block contains only actionable setup and routing guidance. No sentence is redundant or restates the schema.

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 simple 3-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the auth prerequisite, and the practical blocker (start_login not opening the tool). It could add a pointer to list_profile_templates or update_profile_template, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond mapping deletion to 'channel and message type,' matching two of the parameters; this is the baseline credit.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a custom profile template') and a concrete outcome ('reverting to the default template for that channel and message type'). It is distinguishable from generic siblings like delete_template and update_profile_template by the 'profile template' scope.

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 clear operational context: requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set with a server restart, and explicitly warns that start_login does not open this tool. It does not name alternative tools for choosing between delete_profile_template and related template tools, but the implied use case (restoring default for a channel/message type) is clear.

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