Delete a Cloudinary asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the crucial non-schema detail that the operation is irreversible ('Permanently') and that a host-level safety flag must be enabled first, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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 with zero filler; the destructive action and its identifier are front-loaded, followed immediately by the required guards.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility and prerequisites adequately, but omits what happens on success/failure and does not document the resourceType parameter, so it is only minimally complete.

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 33%, so the description must compensate more than it does. It clarifies the confirm/publicId relationship, but resourceType (the enum deciding which asset store is hit) is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 (delete), resource (asset), and identifier (public_id) with the key qualifier 'Permanently'. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from upload/link/variants siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them.

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?

Explicitly states the two preconditions for use: safety.allowDestructive=true must be set and confirm must equal the public_id. That is clear gating context, but there are no exclusions or alternative-tool routing notes.

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