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

The annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the delete is soft, reversible via the REST API, and affects embeds. It could also mention permission requirements or whether the asset remains visible in listings, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences carry all the essential information: the effect on embeds and the restore path. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral facts are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter soft-delete operation, the description is complete enough: it covers the observable effect, reversibility, and the restore mechanism. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a delete action, though a note on permissions or when to prefer unpublish_asset would strengthen it.

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?

The input schema has a single required id with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain how id is used or what kind of asset identifier is expected. The parameter name is fairly self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 the specific operation (soft-delete) and resource (asset), and clarifies the observable effect ('Embeds go dark') plus the recovery path. The title and description together clearly distinguish this from a permanent delete.

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?

No guidance on when to use delete_asset versus sibling tools such as unpublish_asset, update_asset, or duplicate_asset. It describes the operation but not the conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that should drive tool selection.

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