Delete Attachment

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

The description discloses irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), repeat-call behavior ('a repeat call returns 404'), and error semantics (401/403/404). It also explains company_id defaults from procore_set_config. These details go well beyond annotations, which only state destructive and read-only hints.

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 dense but each sentence contributes unique information, from prerequisite checks to error handling and the exact endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff, though the 'Required parameters' sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 destructive operation, the description covers prerequisites, defaulting behavior, permanence, error responses, and the API endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, despite lacking an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that company_id can default to the configured value and that asset_id/attachment_id must refer to existing records. However, it also lists company_id as required, creating ambiguity about whether it must always be supplied.

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 opens with 'Deletes a specific attachment' and later 'Permanently removes the attachment,' clearly identifying the action and resource. The endpoint and company scope are provided, distinguishing it from project-scoped attachment deletion tools.

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?

It instructs to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and to resolve asset_id and attachment_id with the matching list tool first. This provides clear contextual use and prerequisites, though it doesn't explicitly compare with project-scoped delete_attachment_project.

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