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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: discloses the deletion order (auxiliary files before primary), the failure semantics (index preserved if file removal unconfirmed), the divergence for external references (index only), the required grant, and that no customer credits are debited. This is exactly the context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (deletion order, failure mode, auth, confirm, credit impact). The sentences are long and dense, but no clause is filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers identification source, permissions, confirmation protocol, side effects, partial-failure behavior, and cost impact — nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains that assetId must come from soclo_library_search and refer to an owned saved row from which bucket and path are resolved, and that confirm must be true only after owner approval of the exact item. Minor gap: no mention of format/validation on assetId, though the schema's uuid pattern covers that.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Delete one selected owned Library item.' The qualifier 'owned' distinguishes it from removal of external references, and the sentence naming soclo_library_search to obtain the assetId separates it from library_update/library_find without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: the separate manage:library grant and 'confirm: true after the owner approved the exact item', plus a pointer to soclo_library_search as the source of assetId. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. what to do for non-owned items), so it falls short of a full routing score.

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