ghl_invoice_template_delete

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

The description provides the HTTP method and OAuth scopes, which are partially helpful, but the misleading 'update' statement overshadows these. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the delete nature is clear from annotations, but the description's internal inconsistency reduces 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 very short but includes a contradictory and irrelevant line ('API to update...') that wastes space. A tool description should be concise and accurate; here the inaccuracy harms conciseness.

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 destructive nature and the presence of sibling tools, the description should clarify what deletion entails (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects). It fails to provide complete context and includes an error, making it insufficiently informative.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning for the parameters. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema adequately explains the parameters.

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 starts with 'Delete template' which matches the name, but then says 'API to update an template by template id,' introducing confusion about whether the tool deletes or updates. The HTTP method DELETE in the endpoint contradicts the 'update' phrase. This muddles the purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_invoice_template_update or other invoice template tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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