deleteEmailTemplate

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description reinforces destruction: 'Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone via API', 'records removed are not recoverable.' It adds context about system template fallback and user confirmation, going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 organized into clear segments: purpose, use case, required param, see also, destructive warning, return format. Every sentence adds unique value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: what it does, when to use, required parameter, destructive behavior, return format, and potential system impact.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It states 'Required: email_id.' but does not elaborate on its meaning (e.g., the ID of the template to delete). Since the parameter name is self-explanatory and only one parameter exists, this is minimally adequate, scoring 3.

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 'Delete an email template - Permanently delete a emailtemplate record by ID.' It specifies the verb (delete), resource (email template), and nature (permanent). Among sibling tools, it is distinct because it targets email templates specifically.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when: removing a deprecated template.' It warns about potential fallback to defaults if a required system template is deleted. Also notes 'confirm intent with the user before bulk use' and provides an alternative: 'See also: updateEmailTemplate (modify without removing).'

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