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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the deletion is permanent, it removes the stored file, it returns 204, and it does not update referencing image nodes in page bodies. It also discloses the required API-key scope (`wiki:attachments:write`).

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and response code. Each sentence earns its place by covering permanence/return value, the cleanup use case, the referential-integrity caveat, and auth scope.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: permanence, 204 response, the caveat about dangling image references, and required API-key scope. The schema fully documents parameters and account/workspace behavior, so nothing critical is left unexplained.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including pageId, attachmentId, account, and workspace. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond contextualizing that the attachment belongs to a page body when discussing leftover image nodes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+effect: 'Permanently delete an attachment and its stored file (returns 204).' It also distinguishes the operation from page-content changes by noting that referencing image nodes are not removed. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the 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?

It gives a clear use case ('cleaning up unused or leftover uploads') and an important exclusion: this does not remove image nodes that still reference the attachment, and page content must be updated separately. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools like wiki_update_page, but the implied alternative is clear enough.

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