Delete library asset

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

With only destructiveHint=true available, the description carries the burden well: it discloses soft-delete semantics (moves to Deleted), the retention window is discoverable via list_deleted, the key non-obvious side effect that existing projects/clips keep rendering with the asset, and the return shape { ok }.

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?

Three tight clauses, each earning its place: what it does, what survives, how to undo/verify, and what comes back. The behavioral constraint is front-loaded ahead of the recovery advice.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, retention, downstream render impact, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is absent.

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?

A single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage (including its provenance, 'from search_assets'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only an indirect hint that the asset must be one of the caller's own uploads, not syntax or sourcing detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete one of your uploads') and immediately clarifies the scope: it leaves the library and defaults but goes to 'Deleted' rather than being destroyed. This implicitly separates it from purge_asset while explicitly naming restore_asset and asset_usage, so an agent can place it among the delete/purge siblings.

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?

Gives real procedural guidance: 'check asset_usage first' establishes a precondition, and 'Undo with restore_asset (list_deleted says how long it is kept)' points to the recovery path. What's missing is an explicit exclusion — it never says to use purge_asset when permanent removal is intended.

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