study_template_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency. The description adds useful behavior beyond them: name matching before deletion, a post-delete absence check, and refusal for built-in templates.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the deletion action and followed by the safety/guardrail clause. No unnecessary repetition.

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 mutation, annotations cover the safety profile and schema documents target_id and expected_layout_id. The description supplies the missing semantic guardrails and postcondition, though return behavior is only implied by 'verify absence'.

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 50%, with template_id and expected_name undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by describing the target as an exact custom study-template ID and requiring a current-name match; the other parameters are covered by their schema descriptions.

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 one exact custom study-template ID. The scope is precise, and 'Built-in templates refuse' distinguishes the supported target type from unsupported built-ins.

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 makes clear this is for deleting custom templates after matching the current name and notes that built-in templates are refused. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling deletion tool competes with it, and the guardrail is clear.

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