cigchat_facebook_utility_message_template_delete

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 clearly discloses that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible, requires a confirmation flow, and needs a specific OAuth scope. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It covers destruction, confirmation flow, and auth requirements efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive operation with a confirmation mechanism, the description covers all critical aspects: irreversible nature, the need for a confirmation token, and authentication scope. No output schema exists, but the description adequately sets expectations for the two-step flow. This is sufficient for an agent to execute correctly.

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%: `confirm` has a description in the schema, but `name` does not. The description adds context about the two-step confirmation flow but does not explain what `name` refers to. Since the tool name implies it's the template name, the absence is partially mitigated. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 Facebook utility message template' with the endpoint. It differentiates from sibling tools like create, list, sync, and send by focusing on deletion and adding the destructive warning. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: call without `confirm` first to get an impact statement, then pass the token only after approval. Also mentions the required 'Manage Flow' scope. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but for a destructive delete operation, the usage context is clear enough.

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