delete_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'delete' conveys that the operation is destructive, but the description adds nothing beyond the tool name — it doesn't state that the action is irreversible, whether dependent data is affected, or if any confirmation is required. Significant gap for a destructive operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it borders on under-specification rather than achieving true informational conciseness.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (1 param, no output schema), lowering the bar, but the description omits the return/response behavior and any note about the irreversible consequences of deletion or dependencies on templates in use. For a destructive action this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 0% and the description does not clarify the templateId parameter — its meaning, its source (e.g., from list_templates or get_template_detail), or its format constraints. The parameter is partially self-evident from the tool name, but with zero schema coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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 ('删除' = delete) and resource ('指定模板' = specified template). It distinguishes from siblings since it's the only tool in the list with a delete-based operation; siblings use create/copy/save/update verbs for the same resource. Clear purpose though minimal.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., template must exist or not be in use), and no mention of related list/get operations that typically precede a deletion. For a destructive tool, the absence of selection conditions or exclusions leaves the agent to infer the context entirely.

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