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 goes beyond them by disclosing that this is a *soft* delete ('sets deleted_at') and naming the required 'infrastructure_assets:write' scope — both are real behavioral facts not present in structured fields.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation, target, mechanism, and prerequisite front-loaded; 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations already covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description adds the soft-delete mechanism and the auth scope, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of what happens to dependent records or how to restore.

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?

Only one parameter and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the UUID 'id'. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 for full-coverage schemas.

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 precise verb ('soft-delete'), the exact resource ('an infrastructure asset (feature)'), and the lookup key ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling delete_* tools and from update_infrastructure_asset without opening either 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?

The description never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. update_infrastructure_asset for recoverable edits, or hard-delete paths elsewhere in the sibling list). Usage is only implied by the verb, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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