redmine_attachment_delete

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It does this by showing the DELETE method and requiring confirm: true, which clearly signals an irreversible action. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or error behavior, but the confirm requirement is the most critical safety trait.

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?

A single, dense sentence conveys the operation, endpoint, and mandatory confirmation. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive call with no output schema, the essential invocation details are present: resource, endpoint, and required confirm flag. It could add a note about irreversibility or permission requirements, but nothing critical is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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 50%; confirm is fully documented in the schema, while id has only type information. The description adds the endpoint template showing id is the path parameter and reiterates that confirm must be true, providing modest semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states the exact operation ('Delete attachment') and the REST endpoint (DELETE /attachments/:id.json), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools like redmine_attachment_get, redmine_attachment_update, and redmine_attachment_upload.

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 operation is unambiguous: use this tool to delete a specific attachment by ID. The endpoint and confirm requirement establish clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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