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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description goes beyond that by explaining that dependent assets cause refusal and the dependent is named. It also adds the free-tier-slot consequence, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The final 'Free.' is slightly redundant with the earlier free-tier-slot sentence, but overall every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding with minimal waste.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the eligibility condition, the consequence on success, and the failure behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema, including the expected id format and the exact/partial-name option. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 ('Remove one asset from the register') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling lifecycle tools by clarifying the asset must not be disposed of or journaled. This lets an agent cleanly separate asset_delete from asset_dispose and asset_journal.

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?

It clearly says when to use the tool: only when nothing depends on the asset. It also gives the rejection behavior for dependents. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools to use for disposal or journaling, so the routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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