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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing that this is a SOFT delete (the row persists but drops off the listing) and that ownership is required. The idempotency sentence restates the annotation rather than adding to it, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier. The final idempotency sentence largely duplicates the annotation's idempotentHint and is the one mildly redundant piece.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (ownership), effect (soft-delete, removal from listing), retry semantics, and intended use cases. The only gap is not stating the return value or whether the ID becomes reusable, which is minor here.

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 the single attachment_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the ownership constraint ('you own'), not new format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete), resource (attachment), ownership scope ('you own'), and identifier type (ULID) in the first sentence. An agent can distinguish this from attach_listing_photo, confirm_attachment_upload, and sign_attachment_upload without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases – cleaning up an abandoned signed-but-unfinished upload, or removing an unwanted photo – which routes the agent well versus sibling attachment tools. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit alternative-tool disambiguation (e.g. 'to remove a photo from a live listing, use update_listing'), so it stops short of a 5.

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