delete-project-template

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing that the deletion cannot be undone and by stating that it returns a success status.

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 warning is front-loaded and the sections are easy to scan. The Required Fields section largely duplicates the schema and the example is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure remains 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 template-deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the irreversible nature of the action, both required IDs, how to obtain the template ID, and the success response. The annotations carry the rest of the safety profile.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining where to obtain templateId via get-project-template-list and includes a concrete example payload, going beyond the schema text.

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 a specific verb and resource: delete an existing task template from a Dooray project. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations such as get-project-template, create-project-template, and update-project-template by naming the template resource and deletion action.

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 gives clear usage context by warning that the action is permanent and by directing the agent to get-project-template-list to obtain template IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with update-project-template, but the destructive purpose is unambiguous.

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