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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond those hints by specifying "Soft-delete" (distinguishing it from a hard delete) and stating the required permission scope. It does not explain reversibility or side effects on related records, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The key operation and identifier come first, followed by the required scope. No redundancy or 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?

The tool has low complexity (one required parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the operation, the soft-delete nature, and the required scope, which is enough for correct invocation. It could optionally clarify what soft-delete means for recoverability, but that omission is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the single parameter already has a clear description ("Assessment ID") with UUID format and pattern. The description's "by ID" adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ("Soft-delete"), resource ("asset condition assessment"), and identifier ("by ID"), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling create_*, update_*, and get_* tools. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives (e.g., update_asset_condition_assessment or a hard delete if one exists). The only contextual detail is the required scope, which is an authorization prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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