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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description wisely adds the key nuance 'soft-deactivate,' indicating the deletion is not necessarily a permanent hard erase. It also discloses the return contract ('Confirmation message'), adding value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action statement followed by Args and Returns sections. There is no filler, and each section 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter, and the return value. However, it omits consequences such as reversibility, effects on related data, or whether the asset remains visible in any list, leaving the agent to infer what 'soft-deactivate' means operationally.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args line must carry the semantic load. It correctly identifies asset_id as 'ID of the hard asset to delete,' which is sufficient for a single required integer, but it adds little beyond the schema title and gives no source, format, or prerequisite details.

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 clear verb-resource operation: 'Delete a hard asset (soft-deactivate).' The parenthetical removes ambiguity about whether this is a permanent physical delete, and it clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling update_hard_asset and create_hard_asset.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The purpose line implies the tool is for removing or deactivating a hard asset, but the agent is left to infer edge cases and exclusions.

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