ghl_email_builder_template_delete

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds legacy context and endpoint version but no additional behavioral details beyond annotations. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences and endpoint info. Front-loaded with key legacy context. No unnecessary 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?

With simple two-param schema no output schema, description covers legacy status and endpoint. Missing typical response behavior (e.g., success code, error cases) but adequate for a straightforward delete operation. Not fully complete.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions. Description partially compensates by showing path parameters in endpoint, but doesn't explain what locationId or templateId represent or acceptable formats. Baseline 3 due to low coverage.

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?

Clearly states it is a legacy API for deleting email builder templates (2021-era), distinguishes from v3 template family, and provides specific verb and resource. No confusion about what it does.

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?

Explicitly notes legacy status and non-interchangeability with v3 templates, guiding agents to use only for older email builder templates. Lacks explicit alternatives but the distinction is strong enough.

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