Delete Coordination Issue Attachment

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

Description reinforces irreversibility ('cannot be undone') which aligns with destructiveHint=true, but incorrectly refers to deleting 'Coordination Issues' instead of attachments, creating a behavioral misrepresentation. Does not disclose side effects or response behavior beyond what annotations already provide.

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 somewhat redundant (e.g., 'cannot be undone' repeated, 'Permanently removes' twice). It includes API endpoint info which may be extraneous. Could be more concise without losing meaning.

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?

The description fails to mention what happens on success (e.g., HTTP status, response body). The incorrect reference to 'Coordination Issues' makes it incomplete for understanding the actual operation. Given no output schema, the description should cover return values.

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% with parameter descriptions in the schema. The description lists the required parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 title and first sentence correctly state 'Delete Coordination Issue Attachment', but subsequent sentences incorrectly claim it deletes 'Coordination Issues' rather than attachments. This contradiction undermines clarity and could mislead an agent into thinking it deletes the issue itself, not the attachment.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_coordination_issue'. Only lists required parameters and API endpoint, but lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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