delete_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an attachment' implies a destructive operation but does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether permissions are required, or whether related resources (e.g., issue association) are affected. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, brief sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action verb, but its brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is appropriate to penalize in other dimensions.

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 deletion tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior, irreversibility, permission requirements, and any note about how attachment IDs are obtained. The tool is under-specified for an AI agent to use confidently.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the `id` parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description does not compensate by explaining what `id` refers to. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's sparse information, leaving ambiguity about required fields.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('an attachment'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attachment and list_issue_attachments. However, it lacks context about what kind of attachment (e.g., issue attachment) or any scope, so it is not as specific as it could be.

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, prerequisites, or whether it is appropriate for a given attachment type. With sibling delete tools like delete_issue and delete_project, the lack of contextual exclusions or alternatives makes it hard to choose correctly.

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