ghl_location_delete_an_email_sms_template

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only the endpoint details, which are not behavioral. It does not describe side effects, error states, or permission requirements, failing to add value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences) and front-loaded with the action. Every element is necessary and there is no fluff.

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 simple delete tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description adequately covers the basic information. However, it lacks return value expectations or success/failure indicators, which would be useful but are not critical given the low complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id, locationId). The description does not provide any additional meaning, such as expected formats or constraints, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 action (DELETE) and resource (email/sms template) via the endpoint path. While it distinguishes from some siblings, it does not explicitly differentiate from ghl_email_template_delete, which deletes email templates without location context. However, the tool name and endpoint imply a location-specific delete.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_email_template_delete or other delete operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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