Delete post template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, openWorld. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: explicit confirmation requirement, ownership/admin scoping, and the warning that provider errors surface as failures despite HTTP 200. It does not cover what is destroyed or whether deletion is reversible.

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 core intent is front-loaded, but the description carries a stray double period ('org admin/owner)..') and mixes purpose, confirmation policy, and a generic upstream/error note (wholly unrelated to deletion). Sentences are not all earning their place.

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, non-idempotent tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential safety context (confirmation, ownership scope). The 'use upstream fields' note is out of place for a delete, leaving a small mismatch, but the mutation is otherwise adequately framed.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail (id, fields, account, confirm, payload, payload_file). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Delete a post template') and adds an ownership scope (owned by caller, or org template for admins/owners) that distinguishes it from siblings like delete_post and delete_content_item. The GraphQL deletePostTemplate mapping confirms the exact underlying operation.

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 clear context: it requires explicit confirmation and describes the ownership precondition. However, it never names an alternative operation or states when NOT to use it (e.g., preferring update_post_template over delete).

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