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

Goes well past the annotations: destructiveHint=true says 'destructive', but the description specifies exactly what is destroyed (list visibility, endpoint resolution) and what is not (CDN URLs keep serving the file). The explicit 'cannot be undone through the API' is critical context no structured field conveys.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (it is an archive, not a purge) is front-loaded. Every clause adds distinct information: visibility, endpoint behavior, irreversibility, CDN residue.

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, single-parameter tool this covers what an agent most needs: immediate effect, irreversibility, and the surprising CDN edge case. It omits permission/auth requirements and what the call returns, but with no output schema and a trivial input, the remaining gap is minor.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions assetId or how to obtain a valid one. The parameter is self-evident from its name and string type, so the harm is limited, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 immediately reframes the operation: 'Archives the asset' — a specific verb and resource that tells the agent this is a soft delete, not a hard removal. It also distinguishes the outcome ('stops appearing in list responses', '404 from every asset endpoint') from sibling reads like websiteAssets_get and websiteAssets_list without naming them.

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?

Consequences are described in enough detail that an agent can infer this is a last-resort, irreversible operation, but there is no explicit guidance such as 'use websiteAssets_update to change metadata instead' or 'prefer this over ... when ...'. Usage is implied by the consequences rather than stated.

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