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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key side-effect boundary: referenced media documents are not deleted, which is important for a destructive operation. However, it omits whether deletion is reversible, permission requirements, and error behavior for referenced assets.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The scoping caveat is appropriately placed second. It could be slightly more efficient but wastes nothing.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core action and one important side-effect boundary. It leaves gaps around permissions, reversibility, and failure modes, which an agent might need for safe 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (workspaceId, assetId) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so 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 (Delete) and resource (asset from a workspace), and crucially clarifies a distinction from other delete siblings: referenced media documents are NOT deleted. This scoping detail differentiates it from more invasive delete tools.

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 implies usage for asset deletion but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives (e.g., update_asset vs delete_asset), or prerequisites such as whether the asset must be unreferenced or reviewed first.

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