delete_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is the most important safety-relevant trait for a destructive tool. It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond deletion, but the irreversibility is clearly communicated.

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 a single, short sentence with the warning front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical reinforcement of irreversibility is useful emphasis rather than clutter.

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 two-parameter deletion tool, the description plus schema provides enough to call it correctly: the action, the irreversible nature, and the required identifiers. It could mention how to obtain an attachmentId or any prerequisites, but those are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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%, but the parameter descriptions only repeat the parameter names and character length, adding little semantic value. The names cardId and attachmentId are reasonably self-explanatory, and the description does not add extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Supprime définitivement un attachment' (permanently deletes an attachment), naming both the verb and the resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_card and remove_member_from_card by focusing specifically on 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_attachments or add_attachment_url. The irreversible warning implies caution, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent decide when deletion is appropriate.

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