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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.' This goes beyond the generic destructive flag by specifying permanence and irreversibility. It also clarifies Space scoping and override, adding significant context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, then consequences, then scoping. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It is concise, well-structured, and highly readable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers purpose, consequences, and space scoping. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for a straightforward deletion tool and are not required by the output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50% (only space_id has a description). The tool description mentions 'pass space_id to override' and 'set_active_space to switch', which reinforces the space_id parameter's semantics but does not add much beyond the schema's description. asset_id remains undocumented in both, though its meaning is clear from the tool name. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete an asset. Permanently deletes the resource.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other delete_* sibling tools. The addition of 'Irreversible' clarifies the destructive nature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on how to scope the deletion ('Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call'), which is important for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other delete tools) or when not to use it, though the resource name makes this reasonably implicit.

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