remove_asset

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical side effects: soft-delete, ID preservation, tombstoning of CO pairs, orphaning of controls, and reversibility via `restore_asset`. This is thorough for a mutation operation.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence provides the core action, and the second explains consequences and recovery. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complexity of soft-delete with tombstoning, the description covers the main effects and recovery. However, it omits details about the new version, prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), and what the output contains. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may compensate, but based on available info, it is somewhat incomplete.

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 input schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (67% coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-level information beyond the schema. The `server_version` parameter lacks a description in both schema and description, leaving a 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. Creates a new version.' It specifies the verb (soft-delete), resource (asset), and a key effect (creates new version). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `restore_asset`.

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 explains consequences (ID preserved, CO pairs tombstoned, controls orphaned) and explicitly mentions using `restore_asset` to reverse the deletion. However, it does not compare with other sibling tools like `edit_asset` or `remove_attacker`.

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