Delete a work item attachment

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

The description adds a critical behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: 'Only the link is removed; Azure DevOps has no API to delete the stored file.' This clarifies the exact scope of destruction and a platform limitation, which is valuable context the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the primary purpose and identification options, the second adds the critical limitation. No wasted words and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only three parametershare, full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is deleted, how to select the target, and the file-storage caveat.

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 well. The description reinforces the choice between name and attachmentId, but adds little beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a precise verb ('Remove') and resource ('attachment from a work item'), making the tool's function unmistakable. The destructive intent is clearly differentiated from the sibling tools list_attachments, add_attachment, and download_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 explains how to identify an attachment (by ID or unique name) but does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. There is no guidance about when to use list_attachments to find an attachment ID before deleting.

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