delete_template

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it deactivates Stripe billing meters, orphans existing passes, and cannot be undone. These specifics help the agent understand the full impact of the call, which the annotation alone does not convey. No contradiction with the annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by critical consequences and irreversibility. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what it does, the second explains the impactful side effects.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential contextual information: what it does, the deactivation of meters, the orphaned passes, and irreversibility. Nothing an agent needs to make a safe, informed call is 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?

There is only one parameter, templateId, and the schema description covers it fully ('Template id to delete.'). The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies; no extra guidance is needed or provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'template' and states the exact scope: permanent deletion and deactivation of billing meters. It gives clear behavioral context (orphaned passes) and the impossibility of undo, which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_template or create_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?

The description gives clear context that this is the tool for permanently removing a template and warns of consequences (orphaned passes, irreversible). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but for a destructive delete operation the intent is obvious, and the warning about consequences serves as implicit guidance for when not to use it (e.g., if retention is needed).

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