remove_subtitles_asset

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the typed-delete refusal path, the fact that the asset is loaded first, and the exact return shape. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 tight sentences front-load the verb, resource, and differentiating constraint, followed by a compact return contract. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema present, the description supplies the return shape, and it covers the destructive nature, the safety guarantee, and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (asset_path) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (destroy a USubtitleAssetUserData asset) and explicitly frames itself as the mirror of create_subtitles_asset. It also names the sibling delete_asset and the safety distinction that separates them, so an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Explains when this is the right choice over the generic delete_asset ('cannot wipe the wrong asset') and notes it is idempotent on missing assets, implying it is safe to call when existence is uncertain. It stops just short of an explicit 'use X when / use Y when' rule, but the routing context is clear.

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