rendoc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates critical behavioral traits: the irreversible nature of the action ('This action is irreversible') and ownership requirements ('Only templates you own can be deleted'). These are essential safety and permission details that the agent needs to know.

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 perfectly concise with three short sentences that each earn their place: the core action, the irreversible warning, and the ownership constraint. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words while covering essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by warning about irreversibility and ownership requirements. However, it doesn't mention what happens after deletion (e.g., whether it returns confirmation, error handling for non-existent templates, or cascading effects on related documents), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'template_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (it only mentions 'by its ID' which the schema covers). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a template by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_template, list_templates, and preview_template. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Only templates you own can be deleted'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like using update_template instead for modification), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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