delete-stl-sms-template

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the 'stl:write' scope, which is some useful authentication context, but it does not disclose consequences such as permanence, cascading effects, or behavior if the template does not exist.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint and required scope. Every part adds useful information without waste.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with destructiveHint already annotated, the description is largely sufficient with its endpoint and scope. It is missing only minor context such as the expected response or behavior on a nonexistent ID, but the tool's simplicity keeps these gaps from being significant.

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%, and the only parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Template id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an STL SMS template', and further clarifies with the exact endpoint 'DELETE /api/public/stl/sms-templates/{id}'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-todo, delete-stl-lead, and update-stl-sms-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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The scope 'stl:write' hints at authorization, but there is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or why this tool should be chosen over related STL template operations such as update-stl-sms-template or get-stl-sms-template.

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