Delete Wiki attachment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail that deletion is irreversible with no recovery token, plus the 204 No Content response and typed acknowledgement. This goes beyond the annotations meaningfully. It doesn't cover auth or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible warning, then the response shape, then the lookup hint. Each sentence carries information. Slightly dense spacing but no filler.

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 destructive 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the irreversibility, the response format, and how to obtain the id. It lacks auth/permission expectations, which would round it out, but an agent has what it needs to call it safely.

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 both file_id and page_id are already documented. The description reinforces that file_id should be validated and points to where to obtain it, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (attachment from a wiki page), which is unambiguous against siblings like wiki_attachments_list and wiki_attachments_get. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full disambiguation.

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?

Gives clear usage context: find file_id with attachments_list and double-check before calling. That is genuine precondition guidance. It doesn't state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for removal, but the lookup-and-verify workflow is concrete.

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