delete_brand_assetDelete one brand asset by asset_id. Removes the brand_assets row and (when the asset was uploaded rather than scanned) the storage object. Destructive — confirm with the user before calling. Use list_brand_assets first to find the asset_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | Asset to delete. Get from list_brand_assets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explains removal of database row and storage object conditionally, adding context beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true) and specifying destructive behavior.
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 concise sentences with clear structure: action, effect, guidance. No 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?
Single parameter, no output schema, but description provides complete context: what it does, side effects, prerequisite, safety warning. No gaps.
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 covers asset_id fully (100%), but description adds value by telling how to obtain it (from list_brand_assets), aiding correct invocation.
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?
Clearly states verb 'delete' and resource 'brand asset', distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_saved_asset' by specifying deletion of brand_assets row and possibly storage object.
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?
Explicitly instructs to confirm with user before calling and to use list_brand_assets first to find asset_id, providing clear when-to-use and warnings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite the high tool count, most tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions that specify when to use each. Some overlap exists among creative direction tools (call_creative_worlds vs chat_with_creative_worlds), but the descriptions clarify usage patterns.
Naming conventions are inconsistent overall: some follow verb_noun (create_powersource_url, decode_ad), others use noun_verb or compound names (adformula_intelligence, fleet_analytics_overview). However, subgroups like dispatch_* and list_*_presets maintain internal consistency.
112 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for well-scoped servers. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number likely overwhelms agents and suggests insufficient consolidation of related operations.
The tool set covers core creative intelligence workflows: brand analysis, ad decoding, script generation, creative direction, and research. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no social media publishing tools), but the main use cases are well-supported.