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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds information annotations cannot convey: the file "cannot be restored", the delete propagates to all connected Obsidian devices, and a missing attachment returns deleted: false rather than failing. These are exactly the side-effect and reversibility details an agent needs before 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?

The destructive nature and irreversibility are front-loaded, followed by sync behavior, the no-op edge case, and alternative-tool routing in one short trailing sentence. No sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return fields, yet it still surfaces the meaningful one (deleted: false). Combined with irreversibility, device sync, and sibling routing, nothing needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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%, with both path and the multi-vault vault_id requirement fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates "by path" and adds no syntax, format, or resolution guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ("Permanently delete a single attachment") and further narrows scope to binary files rather than notes or folders. It explicitly names the sibling tools delete_note and delete_folder that handle the adjacent cases, so an agent can differentiate 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?

Gives explicit routing: notes go to delete_note, folders go to delete_folder, and this tool is for individual attachments. It also covers the edge case of a path with no attachment, so the agent knows a no-op call is not an error.

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