jira_cleanup_attachments

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the crucial behavioral boundary: only local temp files are touched, paths and explicit destination files are never deleted, IDs are process-scoped, and per-ID outcomes (deleted/not_found/failed) are returned. This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a tool flagged destructiveHint=true, and it is consistent with idempotentHint=true (already-cleaned IDs surface as not_found).

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type, then the parameter source, then the constraints, then the return values and retry advice. 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema cleanup tool, the description covers purpose, input provenance, exactly what is and is not deleted, possible outcomes, and that Jira is untouched. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: downloadIds are UUIDs obtained from jira_download_attachment within the same server process, and are never filesystem paths. It also explains the per-ID result semantics, which the schema does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope, 'LOCAL DELETE: clean up automatic temporary downloads,' and immediately distinguishes itself from any Jira-side operation with 'Does not modify Jira.' It also names jira_download_attachment as the source of the IDs, so an agent can place it precisely among its siblings.

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?

It tells the agent when to call it ('after reading them') and what to pass ('downloadIds returned by jira_download_attachment in this server process'), plus guidance to inspect and retry failed entries. What is missing is an explicit exclusion, e.g. what to do when nothing was downloaded or how this relates to jira_list_attachments/jira_upload_attachment.

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