delete-template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it states the operation is destructive, removes permanently from the on-disk store, and requires explicit user confirmation. It also discloses the return type. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, uses clear logical sections (Use when, Returns, Do not use, Safety), and every sentence adds value. No fluff, well-structured, and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, safety, parameter guidance, and return value. The output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return structure. All essential context is present.

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 coverage is 0% and the only param is 'id' (string minLength 1). The description adds practical meaning by instructing to use list-templates first to confirm the id, giving context for how to obtain a valid value. It doesn't detail format, but the single simple parameter makes this adequate.

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 removing a saved email template by id') and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing get-template and save-template. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, naming specific alternatives (get-template, save-template). It also advises using list-templates first to confirm the id, which is actionable and prevents misuse.

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