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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the bare verb – no note on permanence, whether re-adding is possible, permission requirements, or what a successful delete returns – and the duplicated '[무료]' is noise rather than context.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good, but '무료. [무료]' is a redundant pricing fragment repeated in two forms and contributes nothing to tool selection or invocation.

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 mutation, the annotations cover the safety profile, the schema fully covers the inputs, and no output schema exists. The description is therefore minimally adequate, but it omits the one thing structured fields cannot convey: that the deletion is permanent and what state the document is left in.

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 100%, so document_id ('내 문서 ID') and attachment_id ('삭제할 첨부 ID') are already fully documented. The description only restates that the attachment belongs to the user's own document, adding no ID format, sourcing, or edge-case information beyond the schema.

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?

'내 문서의 지정 첨부를 삭제합니다' states a specific verb (삭제/delete) and resource (첨부/attachment) scoped to the caller's own document. An agent can distinguish it from document_attachment_add and document_attachment_list by name and verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as re-uploading or listing attachments first. The only extra sentence is a pricing note ('무료'), which does not help select or sequence the tool.

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