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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds genuinely new context: it explains the conditional soft-delete vs permanent-removal logic, why references preserve the asset ('so those keep rendering'), and that the asset vanishes from list_assets either way. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the payload (what happens on delete) is front-loaded right after the verb. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness. The description closes the remaining gap by explaining the soft/hard delete outcome, making the definition complete for a destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the `id` parameter as the UUID returned by list_assets, plus the full `context` contract. The description's 'by UUID' repeats what the schema provides without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete an asset by UUID'), immediately distinguishing it from the many other delete_* siblings. The behavior it describes is uniquely scoped to assets, so an agent can select it without 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature (delete a specific asset) and it points to list_assets as the source of the UUID, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as update_asset when the goal is modification rather than removal.

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