delete_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavior that the asset is moved to trash and can be restored, which is essential for a delete operation. It does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or whether the path must be an existing asset, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 a single sentence that states the action first and adds the crucial qualifier about trash/restorability in a parenthetical. There is no filler, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys the main action and its key consequence. It is nonetheless incomplete in that it does not define path semantics or explicitly point to related restore/purge operations, though sibling tool names partially fill that gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond the parameter name and title. It does not clarify whether path refers to a file path, folder path, ID, or URL, nor does it give format examples. The description therefore does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'Supprime' and identifies the resource 'asset', while the parenthetical 'corbeille assets, restaurable' clarifies that this is a soft-delete operation. This clearly distinguishes delete_asset from permanent deletion siblings such as purge_deleted_asset or empty_deleted_assets.

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 implies that deletion is non-destructive and restorable, which hints at when to use this tool rather than a permanent delete tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when not to use it, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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