delete_ticket_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 fully delivers: the attachment moves to workspace trash for 30 days, storage quota is freed immediately, there is no restore tool, and all error cases (already deleted, still uploading, or inaccessible ticket) return the same 404. This is exceptionally transparent and goes far beyond a generic 'delete' statement.

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 first sentence states the core action immediately. Every subsequent sentence earns its place by adding vital operational details: the 30-day trash window, the lack of a restore tool, the immediate quota effect, and the unified 404 behavior. It is thorough without being bloated, and the progression from action to consequences is logical.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what happens to the attachment, how long it persists, what the agent cannot do afterward, the storage-quota side effect, and the exact error semantics. This is more than sufficient for an agent to safely reason about invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is only 50%: task_uuid has a descriptive source hint, but attachment_uuid has no description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what attachment_uuid is or how to obtain it. The phrase 'Remove a file from a ticket' only weakly implies the attachment identifier's role. Since half the parameters are undocumented and the description adds no specific parameter guidance, the semantics are under-served.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: "Remove a file from a ticket." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_ticket or archive_ticket by specifying that it operates on attachments and shares the trash mechanism with archive_ticket. The purpose is unambiguous and instantly recognizable.

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 gives clear usage context: removing an attachment is one-way-but-recoverable, and there is no restore tool available to the agent, so the agent should treat it as final. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the appropriate scenarios. The finality warning serves as practical guidance for deciding when to invoke the tool.

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