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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important context beyond annotations: a preview-first workflow, explicit user approval requirement, and that existing projects may lose references to the deleted asset.

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 three compact sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the preview requirement and then the approval-gated parameters, which is exactly the needed order for an agent.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers preview, approval gating, and reference-loss risk. It omits any explanation of the world_id parameter or the kind enum, but annotations already cover the destructive nature and the critical safety workflow is present.

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 50%, and the description reinforces dry_run, confirmed, and expected_title with workflow semantics. However, it leaves asset_id, kind, and world_id without any description or usage clarification, so it only partially compensates 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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('owned library asset deletion'), and the deletion itself is clearly implied by the tool name. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the 'owned library asset' scope distinguishes it from delete_world.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: preview by default, and only after explicit approval set dry_run=false, confirmed=true, and expected_title. It does not list sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the approval workflow is practical usage guidance.

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