LightCMS

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

While annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable scope context: 'Removes both the file and database record' clarifies this affects both filesystem and database layers. Does not mention idempotency behavior (covered by annotation) or error conditions (e.g., non-existent ID), but adds concrete destruction scope.

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?

Optimal two-sentence structure. First sentence delivers core action immediately. Second sentence adds necessary scope clarification without redundancy. Zero padding or generic filler. Front-loaded with critical 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?

Adequate for a single-parameter delete operation: annotations cover safety profile (destructive, idempotent), description covers deletion scope. However, lacks mention of error behaviors (404 if ID missing?), return values, or prerequisites (permissions, asset state constraints).

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 coverage is 100% with the ID parameter fully documented as 'Asset ID (MongoDB ObjectID)'. Description provides no additional parameter semantics, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no compensation needed.

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?

Excellent specificity: verb 'Delete' + resource 'asset' + location 'library'. Second sentence clarifies scope (file + database record), distinguishing from logical deletes or metadata-only removals. Clear differentiation from siblings like delete_content, delete_folder, etc. by specifying 'asset'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of archive_asset if it existed, or bulk operations), no prerequisites stated (e.g., checking if asset is in use), and no 'when-not-to-use' guidance. Only implicit use case from the verb itself.

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