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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the editor and draft preview drop the asset immediately while the published site only drops it at the next publish. It omits auth requirements (guestToken is left to the schema) and error semantics.

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, no filler. The deletion action and its scope are front-loaded ahead of the propagation caveat.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious trait (split-brain propagation between draft and published). It does not mention guestToken auth flow or failure behavior, but those are largely schema- and annotation-territory.

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 all four parameters (key, site, context, guestToken) are already documented in detail, including examples. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own key-format and propagation notes, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a static asset') plus the addressing mode ('by key'). This distinguishes it from delete_content and bulk_put_assets, whose names imply different resources and operations.

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 on when to use this versus delete_content, bulk_put_assets, or get/list_assets. The only usage-like signal is the propagation note, which describes effect rather than selection criteria.

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