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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds important accounting behavior: the books do not change and the operation is free. It does not discuss irreversibility or permission requirements, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The precondition is front-loaded and the exception/remedy follows immediately, making the guidance easy to scan.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when it is allowed, and the accounting effect. It could say more about irreversibility or error behavior, but annotations and the schema already carry much of that burden.

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 schema itself documents the asset parameter with format and a pointer to books_list_assets. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific action on a specific resource: taking an asset registered by mistake out of the register. It also distinguishes this from normal disposal by requiring that the asset is not sold or written off, which helps an agent separate it from books_dispose_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?

It gives an explicit precondition: only use while no depreciation is booked and the asset is not sold or written off. It also names the remedy when depreciation exists (books_depreciate undo_after). It does not explicitly name books_dispose_asset as the alternative for sold/written-off assets, so it falls just short of a 5.

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