delete_recruiting_attachment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the constraint that attachmentId must belong to the resolved target, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as permission requirements or effect on related data. It provides marginal additional context beyond 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 with two sentences that convey the essential purpose and a key constraint. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and a critical constraint. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, it could mention prerequisites or typical success response, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is nearly complete.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description restates the constraint that attachmentId must belong to the resolved target, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 deletes one file attached directly to a Recruiting vacancy, candidate, applicant, or opinion. It specifies the verb ('delete') and the resource ('Recruiting attachment'), and the target types differentiate it from generic delete_attachment. The name itself further distinguishes it among sibling tools.

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 implicitly indicates usage in the Recruiting context but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_attachment or delete_recruiting_comment. No when-not-to or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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