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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description meaningfully adds that deletion is permanent, requires write consent and Strategy management rights, and excludes other asset types and patent-service request withdrawal, which are useful behavioral constraints beyond the structured hints.

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 four short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by scope, authorization, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful operational context without unnecessary wording.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers permanence, authorization needs, supported asset type, and important exclusions. The main remaining gap is not clarifying the relationship with the delete_strategy sibling tool.

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 input schema already defines the nested asset object, constrains type to strategy, and documents the id pattern and report reference. The description adds the user-selection constraint and repeats the strategy-only limitation, but it does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 and scope: permanently deletes one asset, currently limited to Strategies. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this generic asset-deletion tool from the sibling delete_strategy, which is an important ambiguity.

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?

It gives an implied usage condition by saying the asset must be explicitly selected by the user, and it lists exclusions such as not deleting other asset types or withdrawing patent-service requests. However, it does not explain when to choose delete_asset versus delete_strategy, so guidance is incomplete for sibling selection.

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