Delete Message Template

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

The description states 'Delete' which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. While annotations already indicate this is destructive, non-readonly, idempotent, and open-world, the description doesn't add behavioral details beyond confirming the destructive nature. It doesn't mention what 'delete' entails (permanent vs soft delete, cascading effects, etc.), but doesn't contradict annotations either.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite being minimal.

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 with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success response, error conditions, idempotency implications from annotations), nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Given the complexity of a delete operation and rich annotations, more context is needed about behavioral expectations.

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% with the single parameter 'template_id' well-documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 'Delete a message template' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (message template), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like dual_delete_template or dual_delete_webhook. It specifies the exact resource type (message template) which is helpful, but lacks detail about scope or consequences.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing template_id), what happens after deletion, or how this differs from other delete operations like dual_delete_template. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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