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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that both the storage object and the database row are removed, and that the report HTML is left untouched, causing referencing <img src> tags to 404. It does not state permission requirements, error behavior for a missing id, or whether deletion is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and its mechanical effect, then the user-visible consequence. Every sentence earns its place with 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets removed and the downstream effect on reports. Missing only secondary details like permission prerequisites and behavior on an unknown asset_id.

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%, so both required params (asset_id, report_id) are already documented, including the pointer to list_report_assets as the source of asset_id. The description's 'by its id' adds nothing beyond the schema; 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 resource (previously-uploaded asset) and scopes it to deletion by id. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete_connector/delete_routine/delete_skill and from upload_report_asset, its inverse.

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 use case is implied by the verb and the schema cross-reference to list_report_assets, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note about irreversibility, and no statement of what to do instead (e.g., re-upload via upload_report_asset). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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