Delete Template

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by emphasizing permanence ('Permanently delete') and irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which reinforces the destructive nature beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail error handling or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Permanently delete a template. This cannot be undone.') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and critical behavior, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (covering destructiveness, idempotency, and mutability), the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on output or error responses, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap, and the annotations provide strong behavioral context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID.' The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples or sourcing instructions, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema provides sufficient documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('a template'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dual_update_template' or 'dual_get_template' by focusing on irreversible removal rather than modification or retrieval.

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?

The description implicitly suggests usage when permanent deletion is needed, as it warns 'This cannot be undone.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_update_template' for modifications or provide prerequisites such as required permissions, leaving some guidance gaps.

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