Delete Template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond them by warning that provider charges, hosting, sharing or deletion may apply and that unknown outcomes must never be automatically resubmitted — non-obvious consequences an agent could not infer from the hints alone.

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 purpose sentence and confirmation constraint are front-loaded and useful, but the embedded 'Base URL:' fragment with a stray empty anchor tag is visual noise that does not help an agent decide or invoke the tool, slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 single-id delete with full annotation coverage and a complete schema (no output schema needed), the description supplies the essential extra context: confirmation requirement and non-retry guidance. Only a brief note on irreversibility/scope of deletion is arguably missing.

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 id, account and confirm, including the 'set true only when the user asked for exactly this action' semantics. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement but adds no new syntactic or formatting detail, so baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a template by its template id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools such as delete_asset, delete_source and from update_template/create_template. An agent can identify the operation and its target 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 real precondition ('Explicit confirmation is required for this exact action') and a retry caution, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., update_template when the user only wants changes) or states when deletion is inappropriate, so routing context is only partially covered.

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