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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds context about what an 'asset' covers and the underlying DELETE endpoint, but says nothing about reversibility, confirmation steps, or permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive delete whose annotations carry the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description covers action, identifier, and asset scope adequately. The only shortfall is the absence of any irreversibility or alternative-tool guidance.

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% with a single required assetId; the schema's own description is bare ('The assetId.'), and the tool description only restates 'by assetId' without format, source, or how to obtain one. This is the baseline expected when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus resource (an asset from the Muse Library), with the scope clarified by enumerating asset kinds (media file, document, web app, podcast episode). This helps separate it from muse_delete_file and other delete siblings, though it never explicitly names the alternative it is distinct from.

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?

States the required identifier ('by assetId') but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that deletion is irreversible, and no pointer to sibling tools like muse_delete_file or muse_delete_chat. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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