delete_template

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is destructive and requires user confirmation via MCP elicitation, which is critical for an agent to know before calling. It does not mention effects like permanence or error handling, but the confirmation warning is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the destructive/confirmation warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential safety aspect. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps like error behavior (e.g., what happens if the template doesn't exist) are not covered, but the critical info is present.

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 the parameter 'name' is fully documented as 'Template name to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('template') and adds the key scope of matching by name. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_template, save_template, and render_template. No ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage is for deleting templates but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or that get_template might be needed first to confirm the name). No exclusions or alternative routing. Basic guidance only.

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