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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing that deletion is permanent, that a confirmation step is mandated, that referential integrity causes an error naming the blocking quote or share page, and that force:true is the escalation path. This is the exact behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three tight sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded, followed by the failure mode and the recovery path. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety precondition, the error condition, and the retry semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it fully explains the non-obvious `force` parameter by tying it to the failed-deletion scenario and the user-approval precondition. `asset_id` is left unaddressed, but its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently deletes an asset') and the permanence qualifier immediately frames the operation's stakes. The delete verb cleanly separates it from siblings like get_asset and list_assets without needing to name them.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: confirm with the user first, and if the call fails because the asset is referenced, show the listed places and only retry with force:true on user approval. This is a clear conditional workflow, though it does not name an alternative tool for the referenced-asset case (e.g., removing the reference first).

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