Api evidence revisions delete attachment create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is low, but the description adds nothing beyond them and actively omits that an attachment is destroyed. It also never says whether the id refers to the revision or to the attachment, or whether the deletion is reversible.

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?

It is short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single boilerplate sentence with no front-loaded statement of the actual destructive action or the target resource instance.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent endpoint with one undocumented parameter and no output schema needs the description to carry the full burden of what is removed and how to identify the target. The generic view/edit sentence covers none of that.

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 single required `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. Given the tool deletes an attachment, it is critical to know whether `id` identifies the evidence revision or the attachment record, and the definition leaves that entirely ambiguous.

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 restates a generic CRUD boilerplate ("allows evidence revisions to be viewed or edited") and never mentions the actual operation, which the tool name says is deleting an attachment. It names the resource family but misstates the action, so an agent cannot tell what the call does without decoding the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no differentiation from the many sibling evidence_revisions tools (list/retrieve/create/update/destroy/upload/attachment_retrieve). Nothing tells the agent why it would pick this over partial_update or destroy.

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