app_store_review_attachments__delete

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description merely repeats the delete action without mentioning side effects, permanence, or any special conditions. No contradiction exists, but no additional value is added.

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 plus the endpoint reference. Every word is relevant, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is efficiently front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the resource and the HTTP method, and the schema provides the needed parameter. While it does not explain the return value or prerequisites, those are standard for a delete endpoint and not strictly required given the annotations.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, with the 'id' field described as 'ID from the matching list call.' The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema 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: 'Delete an App Store review attachment.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the included endpoint [DELETE /v1/appStoreReviewAttachments/{id}] further confirms the purpose. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like create, update, or get.

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 clearly implies the tool is for deleting App Store review attachments, and the verb 'Delete' provides the context of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use update to modify an existing attachment' or 'this cannot be undone.' The context is clear enough given the tool's name, so a 4 is appropriate.

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