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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that deletion is soft ("sets deleted_at") and naming the required write scope, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 tight clauses: one front-loads the delete semantics and the field it sets, the second states the auth prerequisite. No filler and the most decision-relevant information (soft delete) comes first.

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 one-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the operation does, its soft-delete nature, and the required scope. It could note what happens to dependent/linked records, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 100%, so the single id parameter (uuid, linked to an infrastructure asset) is already fully documented. "By ID" adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("Soft-delete") plus resource ("infrastructure asset (feature)") and the lookup key ("by ID"). However, it offers no differentiation from near-name siblings such as delete_project_infrastructure_asset or delete_infrastructure_asset_comment, which an agent could easily confuse.

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 infrastructure_assets:write scope") is a useful precondition, but there is no when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the ID-based targeting.

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