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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: soft-delete semantics, ownership requirements, idempotency behavior, and a non-obvious constraint that a live listing must retain at least one approved photo. These are real operational details not captured by structured fields.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage guidance and behavioral constraints. Every sentence contributes unique 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers ownership, soft-delete semantics, idempotency, and the critical last-approved-photo constraint. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and avoid bad orderings.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents the ULID parameter and where to obtain it. The description adds an important precondition—the attachment must be owned by the caller—which is not expressed in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an attachment you own by its ULID.' It also clarifies the mechanism (soft-delete) and scope (owned attachments), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_listing_photo or confirm_attachment_upload.

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?

It explicitly names two valid use cases: cleaning up an abandoned signed upload and removing a photo you no longer want. It also gives a concrete ordering constraint for replacing a listing's last approved photo, which is the key alternative workflow.

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