delete_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a destructive action via 'Delete' and 'remove,' which tells the agent that this operation is irreversible. However, it lacks additional context such as whether deletion is permanent, permission requirements, or any side effects, so it does not go beyond the obvious.

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 primary action. The second sentence adds useful clarification about files or links, and there is no wasted text. It earns a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema, the description is almost complete. It fully clarifies the scope (attachments on cards) and the nature of the action. A minor gap is that it does not hint at the response content or any post-delete behavior, but this is not critical given the simple operation and schema documentation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, and per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 action: 'Delete an attachment from a card' and elaborates with 'remove a file or link from a card.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, and it is naturally distinct from sibling tools like add_attachment or get_attachments.

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 for when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to remove a file or link from a card.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but there are no close sibling alternatives for this specific operation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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