LightCMS

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

Annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: validation rules preventing deletion of system templates and templates with dependencies. This explains failure modes not captured in annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Delete a template'), followed immediately by critical constraints. 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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter deletion tool. Captures the essential constraint logic (system/dependency blocks). Lacks mention of return values, but destructiveness and idempotency hints reduce ambiguity for a delete operation without output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with clear ID description ('Template ID (MongoDB ObjectID)'). The description references 'a template' implying identification is needed but does not augment the parameter documentation beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('template'). The scope is implicit given the tool name and sibling tools (delete_content, delete_folder, etc.), though it could explicitly specify 'content template' to distinguish from potential email/code templates.

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?

Strong explicit constraints: 'Cannot delete system templates or templates that have content using them.' This clearly identifies when the operation will fail. Lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use archive instead'), but the constraints provide critical usage guardrails.

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