Delete a WhatsApp template from Meta and remove its local registry entry. Use only after explicit user confirmation to avoid accidental loss.
Delete a WhatsApp template from Meta and remove the local registry row. Destructive: only use after explicit user confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | Human reason for auditability, e.g. rejected duplicate or marketing replacement approved |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark it as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that deletion affects both Meta and a local registry row, and by requiring explicit user confirmation. It does not cover reversibility, error behavior, or auth details, but it meaningfully improves behavioral understanding.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical safety constraint. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.
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 a destructive mutation with two required parameters, no output schema, and external side effects, the description covers the essential action, dual deletion targets, and confirmation requirement. It could better address the required id/reason parameters or failure cases, but the annotations and schema fill some of that 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 50%: the 'reason' parameter is well documented in the schema, but the required 'id' parameter has no schema description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented id or to reinforce the required reason. The agent must infer that id is the template identifier from the tool name alone.
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 and resource ('Delete a WhatsApp template'), and adds both effects: removal from Meta and from the local registry row. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_template, list_templates, and submit_template. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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?
It gives a clear usage condition: 'only use after explicit user confirmation.' This is a strong safety-oriented guideline for a destructive operation. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use the tool beyond the confirmation requirement, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.