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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the context effect, the job-cancellation side effect, and the dual-ID acceptance. It omits whether removal is reversible, whether the underlying stored file is destroyed, and what authorization is required despite an authorization parameter existing.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, then usage scenarios, then the parameter caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information with no padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral effects and the tricky ID semantics. It is slightly incomplete on irreversibility/storage fate and the undocumented authorization parameter, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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 0% across 3 params, so the description must compensate. It adds real value for attachment_id (may be the final attachment ID or the job ID during processing), but says nothing about session_id or the authorization parameter, leaving part of the surface undocumented.

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 (Removes) and resource (the attachment from the session) and immediately clarifies the downstream effect on the AI's context. It also distinguishes itself from the job-oriented siblings by noting it cancels the underlying job when processing is still in progress.

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 three concrete use cases (free context, remove sensitive files mid-session, replace a stale reference document), which is clear guidance. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives/conditions such as when to call cancel_job or close_session_document instead, so it is not a full 5.

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