delete_asset

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

The term 'trash' implies the asset is moved to trash rather than permanently deleted, which provides some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose permissions, reversibility via 'restore_asset', or any side effects beyond the trash implication.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate, but it does not mention what happens after deletion (e.g., asset can be restored), return values, or error conditions. The sibling context shows 'restore_asset' exists, but the description itself does not provide this linkage.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description ('ID of the resource'). The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('asset'), and the parenthetical 'trash' clarifies it's a soft delete. This distinguishes it from related tools like 'restore_asset' and 'get_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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'restore_asset' or 'get_trashed_assets'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.

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