Delete Attachment

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

The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by warning that the action cannot be undone and that all versions of the attachment are permanently removed. This is critical behavioral information for an agent handling a destructive operation and exceeds what the annotation alone conveys.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose and danger, and uses concise bullet lists for use cases and best practices. It is slightly redundant in repeating warnings about permanence, but the repetition serves a safety-critical destructive operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, the irreversibility, what data is affected, and safety-oriented usage guidance. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required from the description.

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 single parameter attachment_id is already well documented in the schema with an example and a warning. The description body adds practical context about verifying the ID via get_attachments, but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete an attachment from Confluence.' It also clarifies the full scope of the deletion—'the attachment and ALL its versions'—which distinguishes this from other deletion or content-modifying tools in the sibling list such as delete_page.

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 provides explicit use cases: removing outdated files, cleaning duplicates, and deleting accidentally uploaded sensitive data. It also gives best practices, including verifying the attachment ID with get_attachments and considering a backup download, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool or name a non-deletion alternative in a structured way.

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