Delete an asset

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses immediate removal from listings, a 7-day deferred storage cleanup, that already-completed runs are unaffected, and that the operation is free. This is exactly the consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short clauses, each carrying a distinct load-bearing fact (timing, storage, run history, cost), with the primary effect front-loaded. No 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 single-param tool with no output schema, the consequences of deletion are well covered. Minor gaps: whether errors occur for unknown/in-use asset_ids and whether the asset can be recovered during the 7-day window before cleanup.

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 carries the burden, but it only says the asset is selected 'by asset_id' — no format or provenance guidance (the ast_ pattern lives only in the schema). Acceptable for a single obvious identifier, but it adds little meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete an asset by asset_id') and names the identifier. It is trivially distinguishable from get_asset, update_asset, list_assets and create_asset, so no further sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

Usage is only implied: deletion is permanent removal, so an agent infers this is the terminal operation rather than update_asset. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternative ways to retire an asset, and no prerequisites (permissions, ownership) stated.

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