Deletes Attachments From A Shipment Resource.

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'The attachment records are removed from the database. The system attempts to delete the underlying files from storage; storage deletion failures are not surfaced to the caller.' It also discloses permanence ('This cannot be undone') and the idempotency nuance ('a repeat call returns 404'), plus error payload semantics. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior the agent needs to know.

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 longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries useful information. It front-loads the core action and then progressively adds prerequisites, defaults, permanence, and error codes. Some redundancy exists ('Confirm the target id...' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' say similar things), but overall it is well-structured and not wasteful.

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 tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers a lot: deletion behavior, storage-failure handling, defaults, error codes, and API endpoint. However, the crucial detail of how to specify which attachments to delete (file IDs) is missing from both the schema and the description, leaving an invocation gap. Without that, the description is not fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds useful context about company_id/project_id defaults and id resolution. However, it says 'Removes one or more attachments ... by their file IDs' but the input schema only includes id, company_id, project_id — with no file_ids parameter. The description does not explain how file IDs are passed, leaving an ambiguity about the actual invocation. This prevents the agent from correctly selecting or providing the attachment identifiers.

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 shipment by their file IDs.' It specifies the resource (shipment attachments) and the action (removes), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly naming the shipment context. The endpoint and API reference further confirm the exact scope.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains default behavior for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config, and lists common error conditions (401, 403, 404). This clearly tells the agent when and 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.