delete-mail-attachment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' adds no behavioral insight beyond the structured metadata. The description does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, any cascading effects, or the existence of the confirm gate, which is only mentioned in the schema parameter descriptions. It fails to add context that would help the agent understand the consequences beyond what annotations already state.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is ideally sized for a simple operation, front-loading the essential information without redundancy.

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 straightforward delete operation, the description is minimal but not fully comprehensive. It omits mention of the confirm gate behavior (only in schema) and any post-deletion effects. However, given the schema covers all parameters and the annotations indicate destructiveness, the description is sufficient for the agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but the schema sufficiently explains messageId and attachmentId requirements. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'mail attachment', making the purpose unambiguous. The tool name is self-explanatory and distinct from siblings like delete-mail-message, so there is no confusion about what it removes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list-mail-attachments or add-mail-attachment. It does not mention prerequisites like retrieving the message and attachment IDs or any context like permanent deletion. There is no distinction of when this tool is appropriate versus other delete operations.

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