Delete Asset

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description elaborates on the destructive behavior with concrete cascade examples (deleting a device removes interfaces, power ports, IPs, etc.) and specifies the return value (HTTP 204 No Content). This adds significant context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 (~100 words) and well-structured: a clear first sentence defining purpose, followed by warnings, cascade examples, usage instructions, and return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: destructive nature, cascade effects, required user confirmation, and return value. It lacks explicit mention of authentication requirements or error handling for non-existent IDs, but these are common omissions.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter well (integer, minimum 1, description). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (delete), the resource (asset from NetBox), and the method (by numeric id). The tool name and description together make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from other delete tools among 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?

The description provides strong guidance on when and how to use: it warns about destructive and irreversible consequences, explains cascading deletes with examples, and instructs to confirm with user before calling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for viewing or updating assets.

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