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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful consequence detail beyond those hints: removal from storage and inaccessible associated URLs. It does not state permission requirements or whether deletion can be undone.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the consequence following. No filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter deletion tool with annotations, schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational consequence. Some details, such as permissions or recoverability, are absent but not critical given the rich annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single asset_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'unique asset id,' which is consistent but not richer than the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (removes) and resource (asset) with a clear identifier (unique asset id). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this single-asset deletion from siblings like assets_delete_many or delete_live_asset.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many delete alternatives. It only describes the operation itself, leaving selection among deletion siblings to inference.

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