delete_attachment

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the destructive and irreversible nature: 'Permanently delete' and 'The file is removed from the server's disk.' This clearly communicates the behavioral impact, though it does not mention permissions or error handling.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and includes only necessary information. The Args list is minimal and redundant but not harmful.

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 single-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the one argument. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. No context is missing for the tool's intended use.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a brief explanation: 'attachment_id: attachment ID.' This adds little beyond the parameter name itself, but given the simple integer ID, it is sufficient.

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: 'Permanently delete an attachment.' It identifies the resource (attachment) and the action (delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_attachment or update_attachment.

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 implies this tool is for deletion but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as update_attachment or get_attachment. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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