Delete a WhatsApp message template

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds critical specifics: deletion is permanent, covers every language, causes refusal of subsequent sends, and the response must be a re-read from Meta rather than the 200. It also notes the credit cost, all valuable beyond the raw flags.

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?

Every sentence carries essential information. The most critical warning (permanence and blast radius) is front-loaded, and the confirmation flow is described in a logical order without repetition. It is dense but efficient.

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 operation, it covers all necessary context: the permanent deletion, the multi-language scope, the required confirmation flow, the post-deletion behavior, and the verification method. No output schema exists, but the description explains what to expect. Nothing an agent needs to safely call this tool is missing.

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 schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the rationale for confirmName (proving you aimed at the right template) and the distinction between confirming action vs. confirming target, which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful context, though the schema already covers the basics.

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 states the exact verb 'delete' and resource 'WhatsApp message template', and the permanent nature is immediately clear. It distinguishes from other delete tools by the specific resource and the confirmation flow.

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?

It provides explicit step-by-step guidance: call without confirm first to preview, get user approval, then call with confirm true and confirmName. It also warns about the multi-language blast radius and how to handle the response, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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