email_templates_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material rules the annotations cannot express: two blocking conditions on deletion and the reassurance that already-sent emails are unaffected — precisely the blast-radius information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the blocking conditions, then the side-effect clarification. No filler and no repetition of what the schema or annotations already state.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the action, the failure modes, and the downstream impact. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need to close before calling it.

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% for both the required uuid and the optional companyId override, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which meets the baseline-3 bar but no more.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "Permanently delete an email template" — with the word "permanently" clarifying irreversibility. This cleanly separates it from sibling operations email_templates_list, email_templates_create, and email_templates_update without ambiguity.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for successful use: the last remaining template cannot be deleted, and a default template must have its default status moved first. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use for that (e.g. email_templates_update), leaving the agent to infer the follow-up action.

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