Deletes Attachments From A Defect Resource.

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

The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: attachment records are removed from the database, storage deletion failures are not surfaced to the caller, the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and typical error statuses (401, 403, 404) are listed. This goes far beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 structured and front-loaded with the core action, but it is verbose and includes redundancies: 'Confirm the target id...' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' say essentially the same thing. It also repeats that parameters are required, which is already in the schema. It could be more concise.

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 covers prerequisites, destructive consequences, and error statuses, but does not explain the response format (e.g., success status code or response body), which is important since there is no output schema. The ambiguity about how file IDs are passed further reduces completeness. Overall, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

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?

Although the schema has 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description introduces ambiguity by mentioning 'by their file IDs' without any corresponding parameter for file IDs in the schema. It also states that company_id and project_id 'default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted,' but the schema marks these as required—contradicting the schema. The redundant 'Required parameters' list adds no value.

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 the tool's function: 'Removes one or more attachments from the defect by their file IDs.' This identifies a specific verb ('removes'), a specific resource (defect attachments), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'adds_attachments_to_a_defect_resource' or 'get_details_of_one_or_more_attachments_for_a_defect_resource'.

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 clear usage context: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It explains defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion tools or state when not to use it. Thus it falls short of a 5 due to missing exclusions/alternatives.

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