delete_attachment

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

Annotations already convey destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful operational context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as irreversibility or cascading effects, but with annotations covering the core safety profile, this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the operation and a key precondition, though it is slightly thin on usage guidance.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with annotations marking it destructive, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the operation, the target object, and a permission requirement. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a simple delete confirmation. The description could mention ripple effects, but annotations and simplicity mitigate the need.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter attachment_sys_id, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Delete') and the target resource ('an attachment from a record'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like upload_attachment, list_attachments, and get_attachment_metadata.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context is 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction. It does not mention when deletion is appropriate or suggest any alternative tools.

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