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 covered. The description adds the auth requirement (project_infrastructure_assets:write scope), which is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits that only the link is removed and not the underlying assets.

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, action and resource first, prerequisite second. No 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?

For a single-param destructive tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema fully documents the parameter, this is nearly complete; the only missing detail is that deletion affects the link rather than the associated assets.

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' param is documented as the Link ID. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Delete') and resolves the ambiguous name into a concrete resource: a project ↔ infrastructure feature link. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling delete_project_asset and delete_infrastructure_asset.

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 required write scope gives a precondition, and 'by ID' implies the operation context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many sibling delete_* tools.

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