delete_issue_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as IRREVERSIBLE and instructs to confirm with the user, which is critical behavioral disclosure. It does not cover auth requirements or potential errors, but for a delete operation, the irreversibility warning is the most essential behavior and is well highlighted.

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 consists of two short sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential warnings. No unnecessary verbiage.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what to delete, how to get the id, and the irreversible nature. It might benefit from mentioning what happens to the attachment (e.g., permanent removal), but the explicit IRREVERSIBLE statement is sufficient. The reference to list_issue_attachments also aids 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that attachment_id is obtained from list_issue_attachments, which is crucial for correct usage. It also implicitly clarifies that the operation targets a single attachment, reducing ambiguity.

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), the resource (issue attachment), and the specific identifier (attachment_id). It also tells the user how to obtain the id (from list_issue_attachments), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue_attachment or edit_issue_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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to delete a specific attachment) and includes an important usage precaution: confirming the id with the user first due to irreversibility. It could explicitly mention not to use it for editing or retrieval, but the purpose is clear enough given the sibling names.

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