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. The description adds genuinely new information the annotations lack: the required asset_documents:write scope, which is an auth prerequisite an agent must satisfy. It does not describe recovery or not-found behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 filler. The action and lookup key come first, the permission requirement second.

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 delete whose safety profile is already declared by annotations, this is nearly complete — the scope requirement is the one missing piece an agent needs and it is supplied. An edge-case note (e.g., behavior on a missing/nonexistent ID) would make it fully complete.

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 with a pattern, so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 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 and resource (delete an asset document) plus the lookup key (by ID), which lets an agent distinguish it from delete_asset, delete_attachment, and delete_project_document. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 scope requirement ('Requires asset_documents:write scope') gives a useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no routing to an alternative such as delete_attachment for non-document files.

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