delete_asset

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

Without annotations, the description only states 'delete', implying a destructive action, but does not disclose if deletion is permanent, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements. The minimal description fails to provide behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 three-word description is extremely concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is efficient but not sufficiently informative for a tool with no annotations or additional context.

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 simple schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the deletion operation, such as confirmation requirements or impact on related data. It is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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?

Description provides no information about the two parameters (project_id, filename) despite 0% schema coverage. It does not explain their roles or constraints, leaving the agent to infer entirely from the schema, which is insufficient.

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 action (delete) and resource (asset), and the name distinguishes it from siblings like upload_asset and list_assets. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes an asset beyond the input schema.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_record or delete_project. No context on prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.

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