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

The description states 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.', while annotations set destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: the description clearly indicates a destructive, irreversible action, but the annotations suggest it is not destructive. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 relatively short but includes redundant and contradictory phrases like 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.' These do not add value beyond the core purpose and could confuse users. The structure is front-loaded with the main action but then detracts with misleading 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or error behavior. The destructive nature is contradicted by annotations, and the required parameter campaign_asset_id is not described. While the Space scoping info is useful, the overall description is incomplete for a mutation tool with these 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?

The description mentions space_id, adding context about overriding the active Space, which complements the schema's description. However, the required campaign_asset_id parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, and its meaning is only implied by the tool name. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description only partially compensates.

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 a campaign', distinguishing it from the sibling tool detach_asset_from_ad. However, the follow-up 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.' introduces ambiguity about whether the asset itself or the association is deleted, which could mislead.

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 context about Space scoping and how to override it via space_id, referencing set_active_space. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus detach_asset_from_ad or other alternatives, and lacks exclusions.

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