delete_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the dependency precondition and the fact that Dataverse rejects deletion otherwise. It does not mention irreversibility or auth requirements, but the key behavioral constraint is well covered.

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 compact: two sentences, first establishes the action, second provides the critical usage caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the main prerequisite and action. An output schema exists, so return value detail is not required. However, parameter semantics are weak, but the overall context for invoking the tool is clear enough given the schema and sibling context.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (assembly_name_or_id, environment) or how to specify them. It only refers to 'assembly' generically. The schema provides names/titles but no semantic detail, so the description fails to compensate.

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 tool deletes a registered PluginAssembly, specifically excluding PluginPackage. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_package and delete_image. The qualifier 'without a PluginPackage' adds precision.

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 explicitly explains when the tool works (only when no SDK message processing steps depend on the assembly) and instructs to delete steps first using delete_step(). This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, exceeding basic usage notes.

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