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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by warning that displays referencing deleted assets will show broken images and by specifying the required auth scope.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and each remaining sentence adds a distinct, valuable detail (side effect and auth requirement). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness/idempotence, the description provides the essential selection and invocation context: action, plural scope, consequence, and authentication. It does not discuss partial failure behavior or ID provenance, but those are not necessary for correct basic use.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond repeating that multiple assets can be deleted; this matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Deletes') on a specific resource ('one or more assets'), and the scope ('one or more') adds precision. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling delete_* tools and from update_asset/upload_asset/get_asset by the verb+resource combination.

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 provides clear usage context: this tool is for deleting assets, with a prerequisite ('Requires authentication with at least content_only scope') and a material consequence (broken images on referencing displays). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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