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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks this as a destructive operation, and the description reinforces that by saying 'Remove'. It adds useful context beyond the annotation by defining the scope of what can be deleted and excluding the scraped pool, which is a valuable behavioral boundary.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion/alternative is attached efficiently without redundancy.

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 straightforward deletion tool with destructiveHint true, the description sufficiently describes the intended use, the boundary of what it can operate on, and the alternative for the exception case. There is no missing information an agent needs to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 67%; context and handle are already well documented in the schema, while asset_id lacks a description. The description partially compensates by clarifying asset_id as an uploaded asset and explicitly excluding scraped entries, giving extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Remove an uploaded asset') and the resource ('from the library'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle scraped assets. The parenthetical about scraped:N entries immediately differentiates it from curate_images, so an agent can tell them apart 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 explicitly states when not to use this tool: scraped entries cannot be deleted here and should be handled by curate_images. It names the alternative and the condition for selecting it, providing crisp routing guidance.

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