delete-mail-attachment

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

The description only repeats the destructive nature already captured by the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no extra context such as confirmation requirements, permanence, or potential side effects. With annotations already disclosing destructiveness, the description contributes no additional behavioral transparency.

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 that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose without fluff, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Given the annotations (destructiveHint) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about the confirmation gate (confirm parameter), return behavior, or prerequisites. This leaves some gaps for an agent, but the tool is simple enough that the description is just adequate.

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%, so each parameter is already well-described. The description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 'Delete a mail attachment' clearly states the action (delete) and the specific resource (mail attachment), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-mail-message or add-mail-attachment. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools like list-mail-attachments or delete-mail-message. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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