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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it specifies that the operation only applies to queued outreach emails and that the attachment id comes from a queue status read. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the operational scope without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies targeting constraints and parameter sourcing without repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the applicable email state, and how to obtain both parameter values. It could have mentioned what happens to the file after removal (e.g., whether it is deleted or just detached), but the essential context for invoking the tool is present.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description enhances this by explaining that recipient_email targets a queued email and that id is the attachment's id as shown in the queue status read, which gives the agent a precise way to source the required values.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Remove a file already attached to a queued outreach email.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools by noting 'Email queue only, mirroring attach_to_outreach,' so an agent can tell it apart from broader outreach management tools.

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 explains the target state ('queued email (pending or awaiting approval)') and references the companion tool attach_to_outreach, giving clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for non-queued attachments, but enough guidance is present.

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