deleteAsset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an asset, implying a destructive mutation, but does not address critical aspects like irreversibility, permissions required, confirmation steps, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'asset' but does not explain the 'assetPath' parameter (e.g., format, examples) or the 'force' parameter (e.g., what it overrides, default behavior). This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an asset from AEM DAM'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deletePage' or 'deleteComponent' by specifying 'asset', but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'unpublishContent' or 'restoreVersion' in terms of scope or effect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'unpublishContent' for removing access or 'restoreVersion' for recovery. It lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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