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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important consequences: the deletion is permanent, stored files are removed, the AI stops offering the attachment on its next reply, and previously sent messages keep the attachment but its media no longer opens. That is specific, useful side-effect information for a destructive 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?

The description is front-loaded and efficient, with the permanence and downstream effects stated immediately. The first line repeats the title verbatim, which is a minor redundancy, but the remaining sentences each add useful 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 destructive tool, the annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, and the schema fully documents parameters and error cases. The description completes the picture by explaining what is destroyed and what happens to existing messages and media, leaving no significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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%, and both required parameters already have detailed error semantics in the schema. The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented schema without exceeding it.

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 names a specific verb and resource: delete an AI attachment. It also states the scope clearly by noting that the attachment and its stored files are deleted, distinguishing it from siblings such as update_attachment, get_attachment, and create_attachment.

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 makes the use case clear: permanently remove an attachment so the AI stops offering it. However, it does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives such as update_attachment or explain when deletion should be avoided, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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