Delete an attachment

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses what is destroyed (the file), the side effect on card state (cover cleared), the limits of undo (entry restored, file not), and the need to confirm before calling. That is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid an unrecoverable action.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive effect and its irreversibility front-loaded ahead of the id-provenance tip. Every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything material: what is removed, side effects, undo limits, and id provenance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 0% and the lone parameter is undocumented, but the description compensates by telling the agent where attachment ids come from (kanbini_get_card), which is the key semantic an agent needs. It does not state the id format, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ("Delete an attachment from its card") and adds scope the name doesn't carry: the stored file goes too. It is clearly distinct from the other mutating siblings like kanbini_add_attachment or kanbini_archive_card.

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 real operational guidance: confirm intent first because the file cannot be restored, and points to kanbini_get_card as the source of ids. There is no explicit 'use X instead when' clause, but for a delete with no analogous sibling the routing information given covers the practical need.

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