delete_asset

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'soft delete / trash', which is beyond the empty annotations. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility details, or side effects, leaving part of the behavioral burden unaddressed.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the action, and includes a structured Args block. There is no wasted or repetitive language.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. It notes the soft-delete behavior but lacks details on restrictions, permissions, or operational consequences, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description adds a brief semantic explanation for the single parameter: 'The asset display ID.' This is more informative than the schema's 'Display Id' title, but it is minimal and does not go beyond a basic clarification.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'asset', and adds the clarifying behavior '(soft delete / trash)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_asset and create_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?

The intended use case is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, or any exclusions (e.g., permanent delete usage). It is not misleading, but the guidance is minimal.

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