Delete document attachment

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: 'Irreversible' reinforces the destructive nature, 'the document itself is untouched' scopes the effect, and the note about the FIC API returning 500 discloses a real behavioral risk. This goes beyond what annotations 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 concise sentences. The first states purpose and scope; the second provides critical caveats and alternatives. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 description covers purpose, scope, irreversibility, API instability, and alternatives. It lacks explicit mention of what happens on success (e.g., return value) and whether the tool deletes a single attachment or all attachments when a document might have multiple. However, given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already explains (target enum, company_id default behavior, document_id). No extra detail is needed beyond the schema.

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: 'Remove the attachment from an issued or received document' with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that 'the document itself is untouched', distinguishing it from document deletion tools like delete_issued_document and delete_received_document. The scope is explicit.

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 explicitly names alternatives: 'deleting the document or replacing the attachment via update (new attachment_token) are alternatives.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools. It also notes the API's observed 500 behavior, cautioning the user. The context of removing just the attachment while keeping the document is implicit but clear.

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