purge_deleted_asset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state that the action is definitive/permanent and targets a deleted asset. However, it does not explain why an undo_token is required, what preconditions apply, or any side effects beyond the obvious purge, so the transparency 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 with no filler, and the core action is stated directly. It could not be more compact while remaining grammatical.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the only parameter is semantically opaque and the description offers no source or format for undo_token. Combined with no alternative routing, this is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke a destructive tool without external knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage and only the title 'Undo Token' for the single required parameter. The tool description adds no explanation of what undo_token is, where it comes from, or how to obtain it, so the agent has no semantic basis to fill the parameter correctly.

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 ('purge') and a specific resource ('un asset supprime'), clearly indicating permanent removal of an already-deleted asset. This distinguishes it from sibling operations such as delete_asset, restore_deleted_asset, and 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 phrase 'asset supprime' makes it clear the tool is for assets that have already been deleted, which gives a usable when-to-use condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context alone is clear enough for basic routing.

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