Api asset capabilities destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no indication of what gets cascaded or orphaned when an asset capability record is deleted. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness - the lone token is a restatement of the tool name and is not front-loaded with any useful 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?

For a destructive one-parameter operation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain what is removed, whether the deletion cascades to related capabilities, and how to reference the target. It provides none of this.

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?

The single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no clarification of what identifier is expected (record ID, UUID, name). With the schema carrying no documentation and the description silent, an agent cannot confidently populate it.

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 is literally the snake_case tool name restated: 'api_asset_capabilities_destroy'. It adds no verb-plus-resource phrasing beyond what the identifier already implies, so an agent learns nothing it could not infer from the name, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling destroy tools such as api_asset_class_destroy.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this deletion endpoint versus the many sibling destroy tools, nor any prerequisites, side effects, or conditions. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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