delete_contract_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it merely repeats the tool name. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, dependent on other resources, or subject to permission/validation checks. No behavioral context is added beyond the word 'delete.'

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 a single, concise sentence that accurately and directly conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of the operation's impact (e.g., whether deletion cascades, affects associated documents, or requires special permissions). For a destructive action, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'Contract template ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No compensation is needed since the schema is sufficient.

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') and the resource ('a contract template'), matching the tool name directly. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_contract_template, update_contract_template, and get_contract_template by explicitly indicating the destructive operation.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where another operation (e.g., archive) might be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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