remove_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is soft, creates a new version, preserves the ID forever, and tombstoned CO pairs orphan controls. This is thorough, though it omits details like permissions or audit trails.

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?

The description is three focused sentences, each adding essential information: action, ID preservation, and undo mechanism. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (soft-delete, versioning, tombstoning), the description provides key behavioral context. It mentions the undo tool and consequences for controls. The presence of an output schema may cover return values, but the description itself is fairly complete.

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 description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 67% (server_version lacks description), and the tool description does not compensate for this gap.

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 clearly states 'Soft-delete an asset' and 'Creates a new version,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the undo via `restore_asset` and explaining tombstoned CO pairs.

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 explicitly references `restore_asset` as the alternative for undoing, and explains the consequences of deletion (orphaned controls). It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it could further specify when not to use it.

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