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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the required 'asset_documents:write' scope — but says nothing about irreversibility, storage/file cleanup, or error behavior on a missing ID.

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 sentences, verb-first, with the scope requirement stated immediately after the action. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the combination of annotations (destructive/idempotent) and the stated scope requirement is minimally sufficient. It is still thin on consequences — whether related records or the underlying file are affected — which an agent about to delete would benefit from knowing.

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 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID asset document ID, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; 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 an asset document') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling delete_* tools. It does not, however, differentiate from adjacent-sounding siblings such as delete_attachment or delete_project_document beyond the resource name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the scope line, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., delete_attachment, update_asset_document) or what happens if the ID does not exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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