Delete Page Attachment

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description goes beyond by warning that file macros referencing the attachment will become broken, despite page content being untouched. This adds valuable side-effect context not captured by 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first states the primary action and source of file IDs, second clarifies what happens to content and macros. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 that annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description covers the behavioral side-effect (broken macros), and the output schema likely explains return values. The tool is simple with few parameters, and the description is complete enough for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to detail parameters. It mentions file_id indirectly by referencing page_get_attachments, which adds some context, but doesn't explain slug vs page_id ambiguity; 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('attachment from a Yandex Wiki page'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like page_get_attachments (listing) or page_upload_attachment (adding). It also notes the source of file IDs, adding precision.

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 tells the agent to use file IDs from page_get_attachments, providing a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives for similar actions, but the context is clear enough for a destructive attachment operation.

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