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

The description discloses that deletion is permanent and includes the stored file, that existing records remain, and that the deleted source cannot be reused. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, which only indicates destructiveness. It also notes 'No LLM call', a useful operational detail.

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 description is concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core action, then adds essential caveats about permanence and when not to use. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, scope, conditions, and consequences thoroughly, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter attachment_id with type and description (coverage 100%). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter itself, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'delete', the resource 'attachment', and the scope 'in your organization, including its stored file'. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (delete_schema, delete_benchmark_scenario) by specifying the attachment domain, and it clarifies it is not a required post-enrichment step, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Delete only when that source is no longer needed' and explicitly states 'this is not a required post-enrichment step', preventing misuse. It also notes that future calls or schema regeneration cannot reuse the deleted source, which helps the agent decide when deletion is appropriate.

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