delete_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key safety behavior of checking references before deletion, but does not explain what happens when references exist (e.g., error unless force) nor mention other consequences like irreversibility or permission requirements. This is better than nothing but incomplete.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool, the description covers the core purpose and a critical behavioral aspect. The schema documents all parameters, and since there is no output schema, return values are not necessary to explain. It could mention potential error conditions or confirmation prompts, but given the simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds value by explaining the rationale for the force parameter: it relates to the reference check. This connects the parameter to the real-world behavior, going beyond the schema's literal description.

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 the resource ('an asset'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_actor (which targets actors) and provides a specific behavioral detail ('Checks for references first') that adds clarity.

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 usage when an asset needs to be deleted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rename_asset or delete_actor. The reference-check behavior hints at a prerequisite but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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