delete_transaction_attachment

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates destructive behavior. The description adds 'Irreversible', which reinforces this but does not introduce new behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No information about side effects, permissions, or what happens to the transaction after deletion.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the action and a key consequence (irreversibility).

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema and standard annotations, the description covers the essential functionality. However, given that it's a destructive action among siblings, a brief note about confirmation or rollback would improve completeness.

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 single parameter file_id has full schema coverage (100%) with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.

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 tool name and description clearly specify the action ('delete') and resource ('transaction file attachment'). It is distinct from sibling tools like attach_file_to_transaction and get_transaction_attachment_url, making selection straightforward.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting the transaction itself might remove attachments), no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The only hint is 'irreversible', which warns about consequence but not usage context.

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