Delete Attachment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is the detail that ALL versions are destroyed along with the attachment, plus the irreversibility warning and the backup/owner-verification advice. That is real context beyond the flags, though it says nothing about permission requirements or what happens on a missing/invalid ID.

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 destructive warning and scope are front-loaded in the first two lines, before the use-case and best-practice lists. The bulleted sections are somewhat padded (three use cases and three practices for a one-parameter tool), but every item is actionable rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey intent, blast radius, and prep steps — all present. The only substantive omission is failure behavior for an invalid or already-deleted attachment ID, and that is a minor gap given the schema's own warning.

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 100% and the schema already documents attachment_id, its example format, the get_attachments lookup, and even the delete-all-versions warning. The description restates the verification workflow but adds no format, validation, or edge-case semantics the schema lacks, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an attachment from Confluence') and scopes it clearly apart from Confluence page/comment tools in the sibling list. An agent can distinguish this from confluence_delete_page or confluence_download_attachment without reading further.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases (outdated, duplicate, sensitive uploads) and prerequisites in the best-practices block, including routing to get_attachments for ID verification and download_attachment for backup. It never states an explicit exclusion or names an alternative deletion path, so it stops short of a 5.

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