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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond 'delete' by warning that referencing pages may remain and require remediation, which is valuable. It does not disclose reversibility, permissions, failure behavior, or what happens if validation is skipped.

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 sentences carry all the needed context with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the consequence plus remediation are provided immediately in the second sentence.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with an output schema present, the description covers the main risk and the needed follow-up action. It could be more complete by stating what happens for missing files or how project_guid is resolved, but the essential behavior is sufficiently documented.

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 must compensate for the two parameters. It names the asset file concept but never explains file_name or project_guid formats, scoping, or how they relate. The description adds little beyond the parameter names already present in the schema.

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 clear action ('Delete') with a specific resource ('one flat shared asset file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (delete_page, delete_project) and write_asset by naming the exact target type.

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 gives useful surrounding context: leftover page references are surfaced by validate_project and should be repaired with apply_dom_ops. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_page, delete_project, or write_asset.

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