delete_assets

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining the concrete consequence: entities referencing deleted assets will lose those references. Also discloses the return shape ({ deleted: <count> }). No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint=true is compatible with a delete operation.

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?

Four short sentences, each contributing a distinct piece of information: action, consequence, return value, and when not to use. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: what it does, what side effects occur, what it returns, and the primary alternative. Combined with annotations and schema descriptions, nothing critical is missing.

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 50%, so the description does carry some responsibility for parameter meaning. It references ids generically ('by id') but does not explain rejectReferenced. However, the schema itself provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('Asset ID' and 'Fail before deletion if any asset is referenced'), so the gap is modest. A 3 reflects that the description adds little beyond the schema but does not mislead.

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 ('Permanently delete assets by id'), and the destructive nature is explicit. Clearly distinguishes from sibling asset operations like modify_assets, move_assets, and duplicate_assets.

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 provides a when-not-to-use scenario and names the alternative tool (modify_entities for removing references without deleting the asset). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection in a key edge case.

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