delete_inventory_product_attachment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by emphasizing 'Permanently delete' and the constraint that the attachmentId must belong to the resolved product, which are useful behavioral cues not fully captured by annotations alone. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise: two sentences that capture the essential action and a key constraint. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the verb 'delete'.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover destructive behavior, the description is adequately complete. It explains the operation and a precondition. However, it could mention that the deletion is irreversible or specify that no output is returned (if applicable), but the output schema presumably handles that.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description restates the constraint for attachmentId that is already in the schema, adding no new meaning. Therefore, the description does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('a file attached directly to an inventory product'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_inventory_product_comment or delete_inventory_product_photo by specifying 'file attached directly to an inventory product' and requiring the attachmentId to belong to the resolved product.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_attachment or other delete tools. The resource specificity ('inventory product attachment') implies usage context, but no direct guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools is provided.

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