delete_asset

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

The description discloses the key behavioral constraint that assets cannot be deleted if used in any flows, which is critical for the agent to anticipate failures. It also explains the single/batch modes and the return value as a confirmation message. With no annotations provided, this adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention irreversibility or error details.

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 well-structured with a short summary, mode explanations, and an Args/Returns section. However, it repeats 'Delete an asset from the system' in the first sentence and second paragraph, which is slightly redundant. Overall, it's easy to scan and every substantive point is covered.

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 simple delete tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, modes, a key dependency constraint, and return type. The presence of an output schema means the vague return statement is acceptable. Minor gaps include not specifying behavior when both id and ids are provided or when neither is provided, but these are edge cases.

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, so the description takes on the burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines 'id' for single deletion, 'ids' for batch, and 'ctx' for logging. Each parameter's role is clarified, and it specifies the mode in which each is used, adding value over the raw schema.

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 the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'asset', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_component and delete_flow. It also mentions batch capability, making the tool's full scope explicit.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to delete one or more assets) and explains the two modes (single vs batch). It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the resource-specific naming and context make the usage unambiguous.

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