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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call semantics are covered. The description adds one genuinely valuable, non-obvious fact — inline references are not stripped. However it never says whether the deletion is permanent (no restore_attachment sibling exists) or what happens on a missing attachmentId, leaving the irreversible nature implied only by the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the caveat. The parenthetical aside is slightly dense but earns its place by naming the alternative endpoint.

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 2-parameter, non-open-world mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the one behavioral subtlety an agent would otherwise get wrong. Only the irreversibility/error behavior 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (storyId, attachmentId) are well documented with format examples, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but merits only the baseline.

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 ('Remove an attachment from a story'), which cleanly separates it from stride.upload_attachment and stride.list_attachments. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a concrete condition and alternative: use the REST endpoint when inline reference cleanup matters. That is genuine routing guidance. It does not cover prerequisites (permissions, whether the attachment must be listed first) or when-not-to-use relative to in-server alternatives.

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