Api asset class destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond that—no statement of what is deleted, whether children are cascaded, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 only because it is the name repeated; there is no information front-loaded and no content that earns a 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?

For a destructive single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides nothing an agent needs: not what is destroyed, not the id's meaning, not side effects or cascade behavior.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description supplies no meaning at all for it—not even that it is the asset class identifier to delete. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 tool name restated: "api_asset_class_destroy". It implies deletion of an asset class only because of the embedded 'destroy' token, with no verb+resource phrasing, no scope, and no differentiation from the many other *_destroy siblings.

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 on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, no caution, and no mention of alternatives such as the asset_class partial_update or cascade_info siblings.

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