delete_type_template

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

Goes beyond the annotations (which already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the key cascade behavior: content types instantiated from the template and their content are NOT affected, and built-ins are protected. This answers the most important 'what does destroying this touch' question. It stops short of noting behavior on already-deleted names, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the destructive action. Each sentence earns its place: action, built-in exclusion, non-cascade reassurance, and return value.

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 delete with no output schema, the description supplies the return value ({ok:true}), the protection rule, and the non-cascade consequence. Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'name' and 'site' parameters, including multisite guidance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete a stored type template from the library') and scopes it against built-ins. This clearly separates it from sibling write tools like delete_asset, delete_user, and delete_redirects, and there is no ambiguity about what gets removed.

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 an implicit when-not ('built-ins can't be deleted') and reassures the caller about scope, but never names an alternative (e.g. update_type_template for modification) or states prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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