delete_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates that specifying hsm_id deletes a specific language version, but it does not clarify the default behavior when hsm_id is omitted (likely all versions) or disclose that deletion is irreversible. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the optional parameter nuance without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 delete operation with only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and the optional version targeting. However, it leaves ambiguity about the default scope of deletion when hsm_id is absent and lacks any warning about permanence, which would be expected for a destructive action.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (name: 'Template name to delete'; hsm_id: 'Specific template ID to delete a single language version'). The tool description essentially repeats the schema's meaning for hsm_id, adding no new semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('WhatsApp message template') that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_templates, get_template, create_template, and update_template. It also notes the optional hsm_id to target a specific language version, adding to the specificity.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to delete a template by name or optionally a specific version via hsm_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but among siblings there is no alternative deletion tool for templates, so the context is sufficient.

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