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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value by disclosing the blast radius: removing the attachment also removes its artwork placements, while existing orders are left untouched. It does not explain why a required idempotency_key is present despite idempotentHint=false, which would have been useful for a destructive call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler; the destructive scope and its boundary are stated in one compact clause pair.

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 destructive mutation with four fully undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the 'what gets destroyed' question but leaves the parameters, version preconditions, and idempotency behavior unexplained. Adequate orientation, insufficient 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 0% for all four required parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not. It never explains what draft_id, file_id, version, or idempotency_key mean, nor the concurrency/retry semantics implied by 'version' and 'idempotency_key'.

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 and resource ('Remove a draft attachment') plus the cascading scope ('and its artwork placements'), and bounds it by noting existing orders are unaffected. It distinguishes draft-scoped removal from order-level operations, though it never names its natural counterpart (upload_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?

Usage is implied: this is the way to remove an attachment from a draft. The clause 'existing orders stay immutable' implicitly tells the agent this will not help for order-scoped changes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool is named.

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