Remove a file from an issue, by 'filename' or by attachment 'id' — both come back from get_issue. Requires permission to edit issues in that project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Attachment id, as listed by get_issue. An alternative to 'filename'. | |
| key | Yes | Issue key, e.g. 'UK-1'. | |
| filename | No | File name to remove, as listed by get_issue. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it discloses the operation (remove), the required permission, and the source of the identifiers. It could add more detail about permanence or error behavior, but for a straightforward delete action the core behavioral traits are clear.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the identifier alternatives, the data source, and the permission requirement. Every clause carries useful information with no wasted words.
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 delete tool with three parameters (all schema-documented), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, required permission, and identifier provenance. It lacks detail on edge cases like duplicate filenames or side effects, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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?
The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, providing descriptions for id, key, and filename. The tool description adds the useful note that both id and filename come from get_issue, but this is a minor enhancement over the schema, not a necessary compensation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), names the resource ('a file from an issue'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_wiki_attachment by specifying the issue contextasi. It also clarifies the two acceptable identifiers (filename or attachment id), making the tool's scope unmistakable.
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?
The description provides clear context by stating it requires permission to edit issues, and indicates that the filename/id should come from get_issue, implying the tool should be used after fetching issue details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., delete_wiki_attachment for wiki attachments), 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
