delete_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'Qiita Team only' hint suggests access restrictions but lacks detail. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 very concise (one short phrase) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too brief for a destructive operation, potentially under-specifying rather than being efficiently concise. Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral details (permanence, permissions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. The 'Qiita Team only' hint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps given the tool's complexity and risk profile.

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' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter format or constraints.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('a template'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'template' refers to in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_item' or 'delete_comment' beyond the resource type. The '(Qiita Team only)' qualifier adds some specificity but doesn't fully clarify scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Qiita Team only', which implies a usage constraint but doesn't explain what that means or when this tool is appropriate versus other deletion tools. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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