Deletes Attachments From A Material Resource.

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that attachment records are removed from the database, storage deletion failures are not surfaced, the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404. It also details common error codes. However, it doesn't clarify how attachment selection works (file IDs vs. all attachments), which is a notable transparency gap.

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 lengthy but organized and packed with useful details. The repetition of 'Confirm the target id' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' is slightly redundant, and the unsupported file IDs claim adds noise. Still, each section (behavior, defaults, errors, API reference) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the success response, but it only details failure cases. It also fails to specify how to indicate which attachments to delete, given the schema lacks a file_ids parameter. These are critical omissions for a delete tool, despite the rich error-code context.

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% but parameter descriptions are minimal ('URL path parameter'). The description adds default behavior for company_id/project_id, but this conflicts with the schema's 'required' designation. More critically, the description claims deletion 'by their file IDs' yet provides no way to specify file IDs in the schema (additionalProperties: false), making the parameter semantics confusing and incomplete.

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 action ('Removes one or more attachments from the material') and identifies the resource. However, the phrase 'by their file IDs' is misleading because the input schema only includes material id, company_id, and project_id, with no parameter for file IDs. This ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 provides good prerequisite guidance ('Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling', 'resolve it with the matching list tool first') and notes default behavior for company_id/project_id. However, the description contradicts itself by listing company_id and project_id as required while also stating they default to config values when omitted, which confuses when/how to use the tool.

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