Delete saved attachments

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context about the scope ('all ephemeral saved attachments'), immediacy ('Immediately delete'), and the rationale (cleanup after reading). It does not contradict annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action statement, and includes a clear usage hint. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

The description covers the essential purpose and usage context for a simple destructive tool with one optional parameter. It doesn't mention return values, but for a delete operation this is usually a success indication, and the lack of an output schema lowers the burden. The dry_run parameter is sufficiently covered by the schema.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any additional meaning about the dry_run parameter beyond what the schema already explains. The schema fully documents the parameter, so no deduction is needed.

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 ('delete') and clearly identifies the target ('all ephemeral saved attachments'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_label or delete_draft by focusing on attachments and providing a specific usage scenario. The phrase 'Call after reading a saved file' adds further precision.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call after reading a saved file so nothing lingers on disk'), giving clear context. It doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended use case is well defined.

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