unsave_attachment

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and readOnlyHint=false confirms it is a mutation. The description's 'remove' aligns with mutation. No additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth requirements) is provided beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It does not explain return values or contrast with closely related tools like 'save_attachment'. Given the sibling list includes many actions, more context would aid selection.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'attachmentId' has a description 'a string that will be trimmed', which adds behavioral information beyond the type definition. This helps the agent understand expected input format.

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 'Remove an attachment from saved/bookmarks' uses a specific verb ('remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('attachment from saved/bookmarks'). It distinguishes the tool from related siblings like 'save_attachment' and 'delete_attachment' by specifying the saved/bookmark context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_attachment' or 'unsave_message'. It does not mention that it is the inverse of 'save_attachment' or any preconditions.

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