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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that templates and already-sent emails will show broken images, that cached copies may persist up to a day, and that affected template saves fail with image_not_an_asset. It also discloses the confirmation preview behavior and the not_found condition for images outside the workspace.

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 front-loaded with the action and its main consequence, then adds useful operational details. It is somewhat long, but each sentence carries relevant destructive-impact or confirmation context, with little obvious waste.

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, idempotent delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the consequences, confirmation flow, and error behavior thoroughly. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand the impact.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds only marginal meaning, such as the not_found behavior for assetId and the confirmation preview context, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 resource: deletes one uploaded email image and its file. It distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like deleting templates or renders by scoping it to email image assets, and the title reinforces this.

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 usage context is clear: use this when removing an email image asset, with warnings that templates referencing it cannot render or send until it is removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling alternative exists for this specific asset deletion.

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