Delete a template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the client-side confirmation gate and explicitly notes there is no server-side dry run, which prevents an agent from assuming a safe preview exists. It stops short of saying what collateral damage occurs (for example, whether report schedules bound to the template break), which is the one behavioral fact a caller most needs.

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 dense clauses, no filler, with the resource and endpoint front-loaded and the execution gate immediately after. The telegraphic "WRITE:" label is terse but unambiguous in context.

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 three-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the definition covers the identity of the resource, the invocation gate, and the dry-run caveat. The gap is downstream impact of deletion and what the preview payload contains, neither of which is inferable from annotations or schema.

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 67%, with confirm and idempotencyKey fully documented in the schema itself. The description's only added semantic is confirming that {id} is the template identifier in the request path, which is modest but real; the id parameter carries no other explanation of format anywhere.

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 and resource ("Delete a template") and pins it to the exact endpoint DELETE /v1/report-templates/{id}. That resource naming distinguishes it from the many other delete siblings such as reportSchedules_delete, savedViews_delete and notes_delete without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 name and the endpoint, and the confirm gate tells the agent how to invoke it safely, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over reportTemplates_update (e.g., to disable rather than remove) or any prerequisite/consequence guidance. An agent gets the mechanics but not the routing rationale.

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