delete_attachment

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

Labels the tool as 'Destructive — uses draft+confirm' and describes the two-step commit process. Since no annotations, the description effectively conveys the behavioral traits.

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?

Three short sentences. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without waste.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the two-call flow and references sibling. Could mention error handling or prerequisites, but acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description should compensate more. It mentions `confirm_draft_id` and implies `id` for the attachment, but does not cover `workspace`. Adds some meaning but not fully.

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?

Clearly states 'Delete an attachment' with specific verb and resource. References sibling tool delete_webhook for flow comparison, aiding differentiation.

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?

Explains the two-call flow in detail, including what each call does. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use, but references a sibling tool for similar flow.

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