delete_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive outcome, the fallback behavior (reverting to default), and an access prerequisite (Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY). It does not mention irreversibility or return values, but the core side effect is clearly described.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The access/configuration note is relevant but somewhat operational; it does not waste words. It earns a solid score, though it could be slightly tighter by separating configuration instructions from tool semantics.

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 delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, what happens afterward, and how to authenticate. It would be slightly more complete with an explicit distinction from delete_profile_template, but it is largely sufficient.

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%, and both channel and message_type already have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Delete a custom template') and the consequence ('reverting to the default template for that channel and message type'). It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling delete_profile_template.

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?

Usage is implied by the action statement, but no alternatives are mentioned, and the closely related delete_profile_template is not addressed. The access guidance ('needs a Proof account', 'start_login does NOT open this tool') provides useful context but does not help an agent decide between this and other delete/update template tools.

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