delete_asset

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most consequential traits: the deletion is permanent and a confirmation flag is mandatory. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether in-use assets are blocked or cascaded, or what the response returns on success/failure — substantial gaps for an irreversible mutation.

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 the destructive nature front-loaded and the required flag immediately after. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing required information.

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 irreversible deletion with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (permanence + confirmation) but not the surrounding context an agent needs to act safely: scope of what is destroyed, error behavior on missing assets, and whether recoverability exists. It is minimum viable rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the non-obvious parameter: confirm_delete must be set to true, which the schema alone only shows as a boolean defaulting to false. The asset_id parameter is left entirely undocumented, so half the parameter surface still lacks meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an asset') and names the owning system ('ElevenLabs workspace'), so the agent can distinguish it from the many generate_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the other destructive siblings (delete_voice, delete_history_item, delete_music_finetune), but the resource noun 'asset' is precise enough to disambiguate.

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?

The prerequisite 'Requires explicit confirm_delete=true' tells the agent what to supply, and 'Permanently' signals this is irreversible rather than a soft delete. There is no guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as delete_history_item, nor any note on preconditions like whether the asset must be unreferenced first.

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