delete_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a destructive POST mutation and the required payload, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what side effects occur (e.g., whether it feeds the delete history that get_delete_history reads), what authorization is needed beyond supplying a userId, or the response shape. For a mutation, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first identifies the action and endpoint, the second states the mandatory payload fields. Fully front-loaded with zero filler.

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 destructive write with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation well — what, endpoint, and required fields — but omits consequences: permanence/recoverability, delete-history tracking, error conditions, and return value. The sibling get_delete_history hints at deletion-tracking context that could usefully be disclosed. Adequate to make the call, incomplete for understanding what happens after.

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 100% at the top level, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: the schema only describes entity as "资产对象（含主键 assetId）", whereas the description explicitly requires both assetId AND userId inside entity. The userId requirement is entirely absent from the schema, and the schema's additionalProperties={} leaves the nested shape open — the description compensates for that.

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 states a specific verb and resource — "删除资产" (delete asset) — reinforced by the explicit POST /asset/deleteAsset endpoint. The resource is precise enough to distinguish it from sibling delete tools such as delete_asset_history, delete_bill, and delete_tag. There is no ambiguity about which operation this performs.

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 provides invocation context by requiring entity to carry assetId and userId, which tells the agent what data must be present. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like delete_asset_history or save_asset, nor any preconditions such as asset ownership or existence. Selection timing is only implied by the tool name.

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