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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing consequences (share URL stops working immediately, content cannot be restored), auth/ownership prerequisites, and the failure mode for non-owned ids. Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent, so this is pure added value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, followed by prerequisites and the sibling pointer. No 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?

Single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers consequences, prerequisites, and id sourcing, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 id format and provenance are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces ownership semantics but adds little syntax beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 delete) plus resource (your own asset by id), and adds scope constraints (ownership, single-id only). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like view or search_gallery.

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?

Provides real routing guidance: use list_assets to obtain the id, and notes there is no bulk delete, which implicitly rules out batch workflows. It doesn't enumerate explicit when-not-to-use cases against siblings like view, but the context is clear.

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