linkding_delete_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: omitting confirm yields a dry-run preview rather than executing the delete, which is a meaningful safeguard an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the endpoint and the dry-run default. No wasted words.

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 tool whose annotations and 100% schema coverage carry most of the burden, the description supplies the critical dry-run mechanism and endpoint. It omits what a dry-run returns and whether the underlying file is recoverable, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the confirm parameter is fully documented there, including the const:true constraint and dry-run behavior. The description only restates the dry-run part and adds no syntax or format detail for bookmark_id or asset_id, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a bookmark asset'), which clearly separates it from sibling delete tools for bookmarks, tags, and bundles. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The delete intent is unambiguous, but the description never compares this tool with alternatives (e.g. linkding_delete_bookmark) or states prerequisites such as the asset having to exist. The dry-run note gives operational context but is about how to invoke, not when to choose this tool.

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