Delete an attachment from a test result by specifying the test result ID and attachment ID.
Delete an attachment from a test result. Delete an attachment from a test result using its unique identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond the name: no mention of whether the file is permanently removed, whether it can be restored, auth requirements, or effects on the test result. With strong annotations covering the safety profile, the description should still add operational context, which it fails to do.
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 two near-identical sentences that repeat the same information verbatim. This is redundant, not concise, and wastes tokens without adding new meaning.
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 a destructive mutation with nested parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is inadequate: no return info, no error conditions, no nested parameter explanation. It doesn't provide enough for an agent to call the tool confidently.
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% – neither the outer 'path' object nor its nested properties are described in the schema. The description says 'using its unique identifier' but does not explain the nested structure (testResultId + attachmentId) or how they combine. The description is insufficient to compensate for the zero-coverage 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete an attachment from a test result') and specifies the identifier mechanism. Distinguishable from siblings like delete_issue_attachment or delete_test_case_attachment by naming the test result context, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives like delete_test_case_attachment or delete_issue_attachment. The agent must infer this is for attaachments on test results specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.