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 implies a mutation via "Delete" but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or whether templates in use by records can be deleted — critical context for a destructive operation.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding and the action is front-loaded. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.

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 destructive, zero-annotation tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what gets destroyed, whether the deletion is reversible, or what a successful response looks like.

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 0% and the single parameter template_id is undocumented beyond its name and integer type. The description adds no meaning about what identifier is expected (template ID vs name) or how to obtain it, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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"), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no scope or differentiation from the many template-related siblings (update_template, duplicate_template, delete_email_template), leaving an agent to infer what kind of template is meant.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. It never points to update_template or delete_email_template as a safer or more appropriate option, even though those siblings exist.

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