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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds a non-obvious behavioral rule – folder paths must end with '/' – which is exactly the kind of context the annotations cannot express. It does not disclose whether deletion is recursive or permanent beyond what destructiveHint implies.

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 blocks with the operation stated first and parameters second; no filler. The 'Args:' list format is slightly mechanical but front-loads the important scoping rule (trailing slash) before the parameter details.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Both required parameters are documented, the trailing-slash convention is explained, and safety is carried by annotations. Remaining gaps (recursion semantics, effect on dependent pages) are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: project_id is identified as the project ID, and files is explained as a JSON array of paths with a concrete example. That clarification is genuinely valuable because the schema types 'files' only as a plain string, and the description resolves that ambiguity.

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 resource (assets – files and/or folders) with a clarifying parenthetical, so an agent can distinguish it from the many delete_cms_*/delete_commerce_* siblings that target other resources. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with the asset-management siblings (list_assets, get_asset), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, permissions, or caution about irreversible removal. With 0% schema coverage and a destructive operation, the absence of any usage context is a real gap.

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