delete_attachmentRemove 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the authorization requirement ('requires permission to edit issues in that project') and the prerequisite lookup step, which the annotations cannot express.
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 leads with the action and resource, then the identifier options, then the permission constraint. No filler and nothing buried.
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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations that already flag destructiveness, the description covers the key agent needs: which identifiers to use, where to get them, and the permission gate. Only edge-case behavior (supplying both id and filename, or a missing file) is left unaddressed.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that filename and id are mutually exclusive identifiers and reiterates their provenance from get_issue, but that provenance is already stated in the schema descriptions, so it adds little beyond structured data.
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 a file from an issue') and names the two accepted identifiers. Scoping the removal to an issue implicitly separates it from delete_wiki_attachment, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 tells the agent where the identifiers come from ('both come back from get_issue') and states a permission prerequisite, which is useful context. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as delete_wiki_attachment, nor what happens if both id and filename are supplied — usage is only implied.
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.