Delete a template

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds substantive behavioral detail: the provider documents 30-day recoverable deletion, existing renders remain unaffected, and no restore wrapper exists. That covers the key operational questions an agent would have about a destructive operation.

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 three short sentences with the action stated first and behavioral details following. The first and last sentences are somewhat jargon-heavy, but overall it is compact and appropriately sized for the operation.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies recoverability and side-effect scope, which is what an agent most needs. It does not restate the required confirm flag, but the schema covers that, and no output schema exists to explain.

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 account, confirm, and template_id are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 identifies a DELETE operation and clarifies that deletion is recoverable and does not affect existing renders, which helps distinguish its effect. However, it never explicitly names "template" as the resource in prose; that comes only from the tool name/title, and it does not differentiate from sibling operations like update_template.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over update_template or other delete-related siblings, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage cue is the word "confirmed," which is too thin to function as usage guidance.

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