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

The description claims the operation is 'Permanently deletes the resource' and 'Irreversible', but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction (Annotation Contradiction). The description's behavioral transparency is undermined because the structured metadata disagrees; no credit can be given for disclosure when it conflicts with 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential caveats about permanence and scoping. Every clause adds value without redundancy. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers purpose, scoping, and irreversibility, but there are notable gaps: no mention of return value or side effects beyond deletion, no prerequisites (e.g., asset must be attached), and the ambiguity of 'deletes the resource' remains unresolved. With no output schema and contradictory annotations, the description should be more complete.

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?

The schema covers space_id with a detailed description, which is reflected in the description's mention of the override behavior. However, ad_asset_id (the required parameter) is not described in the schema or the description, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description adds some value by explaining the space scoping, but does not compensate for the missing ad_asset_id semantics.

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 action: 'Detach an asset from an ad / ad group' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like detach_asset_from_campaign. However, the clause 'Permanently deletes the resource' is ambiguous—it could refer to the association or the asset itself, which slightly clouds the purpose.

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 useful scoping guidance: it mentions the active Space, points to set_active_space for switching, and notes that space_id can override for a single call. It does not explicitly contrast with detach_asset_from_campaign or state when to use this over other detachment tools, so it falls 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.