remove_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. It explains the delete is plain and cheap, and not restorable. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, return values, or whether the deletion cascades, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 very concise: two sentences total. The first sentence captures purpose and key behavioral traits, the second describes the parameter. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter format, and key behavioral aspects (plain delete, cheap, not restorable). It lacks details on return values or errors, but these are less critical for a simple deletion tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It specifies the asset parameter format as 'asset-N', which is not in the schema. This clarifies the expected input pattern beyond the schema's generic string type.

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 'Remove an asset pointer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from soft delete by noting 'a plain delete — cheap to re-add; not soft/restorable', and differentiates from sibling tools like remove_entity and remove_note by specifying it's for asset pointers.

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 implies when to use (permanent deletion) and when not (if restore needed) by stating 'not soft/restorable' and 'cheap to re-add'. It provides context on cost and re-addability, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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