Delete Asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by warning about provider charges, hosting/sharing side effects, and explicitly instructing 'Never automatically resubmit unknown outcomes' — genuine retry/cost guidance an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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?

The operational content is front-loaded and efficient, but the injected '**Base URL:** <a href="#">...' line is boilerplate noise that does not help an agent invoke this specific tool and dilutes the otherwise tight description.

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, no-output-schema deletion tool, the description covers the essential gaps: confirmation requirement, cost/side-effect warnings, per-asset granularity, and retry caution. What happens to related renders or assets after deletion is not stated, but overall the agent has enough to act safely.

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 id, account, and confirm all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that deletion is keyed on the asset id and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 an asset by its asset id') and adds a scope nuance that separates it from sibling deletions like delete_template or delete_source: each asset from a render must be removed individually. An agent can identify the operation and its granularity 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?

Provides the multi-asset deletion rule ('each asset must be deleted individually'), which is useful operational guidance, but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_source or transfer_asset, nor what prerequisites apply beyond the confirmation flag.

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