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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond them: 'cannot be undone' plus the precise blast radius of removeFromDrafts ('published posts keep their copy'), which is behavior the annotations cannot express.

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, no filler, with the destructive/permanent nature and the key flag behavior front-loaded ahead of the related-tool pointers. Every clause earns its 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers permanence, the conditional side effect, and related tools, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3 for the two documented parameters. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by spelling out the consequence of removeFromDrafts on drafts versus published content, adding semantic meaning the schema text does not fully convey.

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 ('Permanently deletes') and resource ('assets'), with the permanence qualifier front-loaded. The 'assets' resource is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete tools (delete_post, delete_site, delete_strategy_item), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 description names related tools ('Related: get_asset, search_assets') and explains what removeFromDrafts does, which implies when the flag matters. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the sibling deletes, nor any preconditions or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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