delete_task_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the delete action and the WorkDrive parameter mapping (which is redundant with the schema). It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, any permission requirements, or what side effects occur (e.g., whether the underlying file is removed in WorkDrive). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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: one main sentence and a short additional note. All text is front-loaded and directly on point. While the second sentence partially restates schema info, it is short and serves to emphasize a special case, so it does not feel wasteful. No filler or unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the response looks like or whether deletion is permanent. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but leaves out expected behavioral outcomes. For a delete operation, agents often need to know if the action is reversible or what confirmation is returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the WorkDrive note. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It is a baseline 3: schema does the heavy lifting, description adds nothing extra.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an attachment from a task.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_task_attachment or list_task_attachments. The scope is precise, and the WorkDrive note adds clarifying context without muddying the purpose.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you need to delete an attachment. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is straightforward and no exclusions are stated. The WorkDrive instruction also provides a usage nuance. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'not for listing' but the operation is obvious.

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