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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: permanence, irreversibility, and the blocking precondition from saved-design references. It omits batch semantics for the up-to-50 paths (partial failure vs all-or-nothing), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature, and every sentence adds a distinct fact (what is removed, what blocks it, irreversibility). 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive batch mutation over up to 50 paths, the description should address what happens when some paths are blocked by saved-design references and whether projectId scopes the operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about either parameter. 'Specified asset records' only loosely hints that paths are asset paths; projectId scoping and the 1-50 path batch limit are never mentioned.

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 removes') and resource ('asset records and storage objects'), which distinguishes it from folder/project/variant deletion siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb rather than stated. The one real routing signal is the precondition 'Saved-design references block deletion', which tells an agent when the call will fail, but no alternatives (e.g. replace_asset, move_assets, delete_asset_folder) are suggested for adjacent tasks.

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