asset_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the delete is permanent/irreversible. The if_match requirement also signals optimistic concurrency, and 'from an expanded concept' hints at a required state. It still omits permissions, side effects on references, and error behavior for stale if_match.

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, zero waste, with the destructive nature front-loaded and the hard precondition immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters at 25% schema coverage needs more than this. It covers irreversibility and the if_match contract but leaves path/concept_id semantics, permission prerequisites, and failure modes unexplained.

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 only 25% (only 'reason' is documented), so the description must compensate. It adds strong meaning for if_match (raw-byte sha256, must be current, sourced from asset_read/asset_list) but says nothing about path, concept_id, or the trailer meaning of reason.

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 deletes') and a scoped resource ('a non-Markdown asset from an expanded concept'), which cleanly separates it from concept_delete and asset_write/asset_read. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, and the boundary versus artifact_delete is left implicit.

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 supplies a genuine precondition ('if_match is mandatory and must be the current raw-byte sha256 returned by asset_read or asset_list'), which implies the caller must read first. However it gives no when-to-use / when-not guidance relative to the other delete tools (artifact_delete, concept_delete).

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