swebsy_delete_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key side effects: refusal by default for in-use assets, and that force:true clears live component references. It does not mention reversibility or error conditions, but for a delete tool these are the most critical behaviors and are covered well.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the default behavior and the force caveat. Every sentence adds necessary information; the structure is clean and scannable.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, default refusal, and force behavior. There is no output schema, so return values aren't required. Minor gaps like error handling on invalid assetId or permanent deletion are implied by 'delete' and are not critical for correct usage.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters clearly (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the default refusal logic tied to assetId and the side effect of force, reinforcing and expanding on the schema descriptions. This extra context helps the agent decide when to set force.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one managed asset') within a clear context ('open site's asset gallery'). It distinguishes from siblings like swebsy_delete_section by naming the exact target type. The default refusal behavior further clarifies what the tool does, making it unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: call swebsy_list_assets first to obtain a valid assetId, and notes that force:true should be used only when explicitly intended. While it doesn't explicitly say when to use this instead of other delete tools, the name and description make it clear this is for assets, and the prerequisite is explicitly stated.

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