cipp_delete_standard_template

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds critical context: 'Tenants assigned to it lose the standards it enforced.' This explains the downstream consequences of deletion, which is not deducible from annotations alone. The warning emoji and 'HIGH-IMPACT' label further enhance transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a warning emoji. The critical information (high-impact, permanent deletion, consequence) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, the irreversible nature, and the effect on tenants. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (templateId: 'The GUID of the Standards Template to delete.') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond stating 'by ID'; thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for a tool with complete schema documentation.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Permanently deletes a CIPP Standards Template by ID.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cipp_list_standard_templates and cipp_create_standard_template by focusing on deletion and its irreversible impact.

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 provides a clear context-specific guideline: 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' This advises the agent on when to use the tool (only after user confirmation). While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the high-impact warning and sibling tool names imply when other tools are appropriate (e.g., list or create).

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