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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the default refusal for assets referenced by pages, symbols, styles, or settings, and by warning that force clears live component references — concrete consequence detail the annotations lack.

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 short sentences with the core action and the safe default front-loaded, followed by the force caveat. Slight overlap between the description's force note and the schema's force description costs a point.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns, and it covers the key behaviors an agent needs: prerequisite listing, default in-use refusal, and the destructive scope of force. A brief note on the outcome/confirmation would make it fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's force explanation largely restates the schema's 'clearing its live references' wording, adding only the usage caution, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 one managed asset') plus the scope ('the open site's asset gallery'). This clearly separates it from sibling deletions such as swebsy_delete_symbol or swebsy_delete_section.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to 'call swebsy_list_assets first' to obtain an assetId, and constrains force with 'should be used only when that is explicitly intended.' No alternative deletion tool is contrasted for the case where the target is not a managed asset, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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