delete_attachment

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

The description discloses that the stored image remains in storage and accessible via signed URL, and that no deletion endpoint exists. This goes beyond the basic action to explain real-world consequences, security implications, and how to communicate with users. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden and excels.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the critical caveat about not deleting the stored image, the security note about signed URLs, and explicit user-communication guidance. The structure is front-loaded with the action and then elaborates on important nuances.

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 misleading tool name and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what is actually deleted, what remains, why deletion is impossible, and how to handle user expectations. It is fully self-contained for safe and correct usage.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the two parameters with descriptions (documentId and attachmentId). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the conceptual 'deleting its reference' phrase, which does not enhance the schema's clarity. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: removing a reference from a document body. It distinguishes itself from actual deletion by emphasizing it only unlinks, which is critical given the tool's name. This specific verb+resource combination makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 warns that this is 'unlink from document', not 'delete', and advises against telling users their file has been erased. This provides strong guidance on when to use the tool and what not to claim. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where one would choose this over a different operation.

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