delete_template

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

The description repeats the destructiveHint=true that the annotations already encode, but it adds the behavioral detail that MCP elicitation confirmation is required before the deletion runs. This informs the agent of an interaction step it must expect at runtime, which goes beyond the structured metadata. Slight ding because the description doesn't state what is destroyed (user templates vs. system templates) 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?

Two short sentences with the verb and object front-loaded, followed by a clearly separated warning paragraph. Just enough whitespace and paragraph structure to separate the operation from the caution. Zero filler words.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the oddly-phrased 'via MCP elicitation' — it reads as if a template placeholder was left half-substituted, and it doesn't specify whether the confirmation is a simple yes/no or a multi-step interaction. The agent would want to know if deletion is recoverable before invoking this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the schema's 'by name' language without adding format, case-sensitivity, or wildcard details. No additional value added beyond the schema for the single parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource with a scoping qualifier: 'Delete a template by name.' The 'by name' qualifier clarifies the identifier semantics. This is unambiguous even among deletion-heavy siblings like delete_account, delete_rule, and delete_mailbox, since template deletion is clearly the resource being targeted.

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 only extra-tool guidance is the warning that the operation is destructive and requires user confirmation. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., no note to use save_template for edits or get_template for reads). The tool name carries the disambiguation burden, which works here only because the name is descriptive.

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