shelf_delete_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds the stronger, operationally important claim that the deletion is irreversible and that user confirmation is required, which goes beyond the boolean hints.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded before the confirmation requirement. Every clause 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 two-parameter delete whose safety profile is already carried by annotations, the description communicates enough to call it safely. The remaining gap is the undocumented required assetId and side effects on kits/placements/bookings, but the core risk disclosure is present.

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 only 50%: orgId is documented in the schema but assetId has no description in either place. The description adds nothing about identifier format, whether assetId must be a full ID vs. a code, or any constraints, leaving the required parameter's semantics unexplained.

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 an asset') with the modifier 'Permanently' that separates it from softer siblings like shelf_update_asset or archive-style operations. It does not name a sibling directly, but the destructive scope is 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?

'Confirm with the user first' gives one concrete precondition for invoking, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it does not say when to prefer this over alternatives (archive/update) or what happens if the asset is in a kit, booking, or placement.

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