delete_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that deletion is a 'soft-delete' (non-permanent) and requires confirmation, adding context beyond the tool name. Yet it does not explain consequences, reversibility, permissions, or what happens to the asset after soft-deletion, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 three-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, this description adequately covers the purpose and the critical confirmation requirement. It could be more complete by clarifying soft-delete semantics and expected return value, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter details beyond reinforcing that confirm must be true, which the schema already states as a const. Thus the description adds minimal value over the schema, so a baseline 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 states 'Soft-delete an asset from the brand library' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the action (soft-delete) and object (asset), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_theme or delete_post.

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 makes clear that this tool is for soft-deleting an asset and instructs the caller to pass confirm:true. However, it does not mention when not to use it, alternatives such as permanent deletion or restore, or any prerequisites like brand context. The usage context is implied but not explicit about exclusions.

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