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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious trait — referenced assets are skipped rather than deleted — but leaves the key ambiguity unresolved: does a skipped asset cause partial success, an error, or a silent no-op, and how is that reported? With no output schema, this omission matters.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive action is front-loaded ahead of the skip caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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, batch-capable mutation with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin: batch limit, idempotency semantics, and the result of a partial skip are all absent. An agent could call it but cannot predict what happens when some assets are in use.

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 0% and the description names no parameters. It does not mention the assets array (1–20 UUIDs per call), the workspace scoping requirement, or what the required idempotency_key is for — all of which the description should carry given the empty schema metadata.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete library assets'), which is unambiguous against the assets_get, assets_list, assets_import and assets_upload_url siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. archiving, or per-file deletion via files_delete), nor on prerequisites such as whether the asset must be unused first. The only quasi-guidance is the implicit caveat that assets referenced by saved builds are skipped.

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