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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description merely repeats the concept of deletion ('Delete an asset') without adding any extra behavioral context such as permanence, irreversibility, or storage implications. The 'FREE' text adds noise, not transparency.

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 extremely short but contains redundant filler: 'FREE. (FREE)' is completely irrelevant to the tool's function and should be removed. A concise description should make every word count; these extra sentences fail to earn their place.

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 two-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally viable. It states the action and target storage location, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it lacks an explicit statement about permanence or potential side effects, though the destructive annotation partially compensates. No output schema means the description could also mention that no return value is expected.

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 provides 100% coverage for both 'key' and 'wallet' parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already supplies the necessary meaning.

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 clearly states the primary action ('Delete an asset') and the resource affected ('from your wallet storage'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset, save_asset, and list_assets, which involve different operations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or consequences. The tool name and schema imply deletion, but there is no explicit 'use this when you want to permanently remove an asset' or 'this deletes by key and wallet' context.

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