Delete asset character

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the ownership scope ('authenticated user's fal Assets library') and says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, whether the confirm flag is enforced, or what happens to assets referencing the character.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity leans toward under-specification rather than tight information density.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description omits the consequences an agent needs: permanence, what the response returns, whether the caller must pass confirm=true in practice, and any permission requirements. The schema documents the inputs, but the description leaves the agent under-informed about the act itself.

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 100%, with character_id, account, confirm, and Idempotency_Key all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own (e.g., it never explains the confirm gate or the account label), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete asset character') and scopes it to the authenticated user's fal Assets library, which distinguishes it from the other delete_* siblings (delete_asset_collection, delete_asset_tag, delete_request_payloads). It stops short of explicitly contrasting when this resource applies versus those siblings, but the resource noun 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_asset_character or unfavorite_asset_character. The reader gets no signal about the conditions under which deleting a character is the right call.

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