Delete Asset

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: confirmation gating, possible provider charges/hosting/sharing consequences, and the instruction never to auto-resubmit an unknown outcome (important given idempotentHint=false).

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the appended Base URL line contains raw HTML anchor markup that is noise in a tool description, and the confirmation/charges boilerplate is templated filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers confirmation, per-asset deletion semantics and retry caution. It stays vague about what deletion actually removes or whether it is recoverable, which is the one remaining gap for a destructive operation.

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%, so id, account and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the id concept ('by its asset id') and adds nothing about account scoping or the confirm flag, 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Delete an asset by its asset id') with an added scoping rule that matters: each asset from a multi-asset render (thumbnail, poster) must be deleted individually. This clearly separates it from delete_source and delete_template in the sibling set.

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?

Gives the operative usage condition (one call per asset id, so multi-asset renders require repeated calls) and states that explicit confirmation is required for this exact action. It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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