Delete assets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that the default is a recoverable soft-delete, that force=true is PERMANENT and IRREVERSIBLE, names restore_assets as the undo path, and discloses the side effect of moving/deleting assets. This is exactly the risk context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded with the critical distinction (recoverable vs permanent) and the args block is compact. Minor waste: 'Side effect: moves/deletes assets' largely restates the first sentence, and the Returns line duplicates the output schema.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers purpose, recoverability, the permanent-mode warning, per-parameter meaning, and return shape. An output schema exists, so restating the return value is redundant but harmless; no gap remains that would cause a misinvocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: asset_ids is defined as a list of asset UUIDs, and force is fully specified with its default (false = trash, recoverable) and its true meaning (permanent, no undo). Nothing about the two parameters is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete assets') plus the two deletion modes (soft-delete to trash vs permanent). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by naming restore_assets as the recovery path, though it does not explicitly contrast with empty_trash or the other delete_* tools.

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?

'Use this to remove unwanted photos/videos' gives clear context for when to call it, and the default/force explanation implies the safe-vs-permanent decision. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it (e.g. use delete_album for albums, empty_trash to purge), so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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