delete_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (the asset record plus its Etchv-managed file availability), the auth requirements, and the caveat that customer bucket objects are governed by separate storage deletion rules rather than being removed here.

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?

Three short sentences with the destructive nature and prerequisites front-loaded, so nothing needs re-reading. It loses a point because 'This is destructive' merely restates the destructiveHint annotation rather than adding information.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: what disappears, who may call it, and the boundary with customer-owned storage. The only real gap is guidance on the asset_id value itself.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it, yet asset_id is never mentioned. The schema's 'ast_' prefix/64-hex-char pattern is the only hint of format, and the description adds nothing about what identifier to supply.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete an asset record') and immediately scopes it ('and its Etchv-managed file availability'), which cleanly separates it from get_asset, update_asset, list_assets, and store_asset. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear operating context: the call is destructive and requires the assets:delete permission plus an owner/admin role. That tells the agent when the call is appropriate and likely to succeed, but it never names an alternative operation or an explicit 'do not use this when' condition.

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