deleteAttachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral consequences. It only restates the operation ('Delete attachment') without mentioning irreversibility, permissions required, impact on related data, or error conditions. This is a tautological restatement of the tool name, providing no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 brief ('Delete attachment'), which is concise in word count but lacks substantive structure. It is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it fails to provide operational details that an agent would need. A well-structured description would front-load the main action but also include key caveats or context.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is incomplete. It omits any mention of the response format (json/xml), the meaning of attachmentId, or the consequences of deletion (e.g., permanent removal). There is no output schema or annotations to compensate, so the description leaves critical context unaddressed for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema shows two parameters (format, attachmentId) inside pathParams, but neither the schema nor the description provides any semantic explanation. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does nothing to compensate by explaining parameter usage or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds zero value over the schema fields.

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 'Delete attachment' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (attachment), distinguishing it from other delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., deleteProject, deleteUser). However, it lacks any scope or specificity beyond the resource type, such as which attachment or under what conditions, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar of a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for related operations (e.g., updateAttachment, getAttachment). This is a clear absence of usage guidelines.

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