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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: the file goes to the trash rather than being permanently destroyed, and removal is gated by per-role permissions. It stops short of saying whether the trashed file can be restored or how the task's attachment list changes.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, then the side effect, then the permission scope. No filler and no redundancy with the title.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the effect and the authorization model well. The remaining hole is the undocumented `fileItemId` — with no output schema and no pointer to a lookup tool, an agent may not know how to supply that required identifier safely.

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 only 50%: `task` is documented in the schema itself, but `fileItemId` is a bare string with no explanation anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all, so the agent is left guessing what a fileItemId is and how to obtain it (e.g. via list_files or get_file_details), which is a real risk on a destructive call.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Remove an attachment from a task") and even the side effect ("move the file to the trash"). It implicitly separates itself from delete_file and remove_task_link by scoping the removal to a task attachment, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 gives a clear authorization precondition: you may remove your own attachment, or any attachment if you are an admin, project manager or project lead. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives such as delete_file (permanent file deletion) or tell it what to do when the permission check would fail.

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