Discard staged attachment

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Permanently remove' signals irreversibility, and 'before it is used' clarifies the only valid time window. This aligns with and enriches the destructiveHint=true annotation rather than merely repeating it.

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?

One tight sentence communicates the action, the target, and the timing with zero filler. The critical information is front-loaded, and no words are wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description plus annotations cover the purpose, irreversibility, and timing adequately. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed; the main gap is that the source of attachment_token is not explained.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter, but it never mentions attachment_token explicitly. The token's provenance, format, or relationship to the staged attachment is left entirely to inference from the parameter name and sibling tools.

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 ('Permanently remove') and a specific resource ('one staged attachment'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling upload/commit tools. The phrase 'before it is used' adds the lifecycle position, making it unmistakable what this tool is for.

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 states that this tool applies to a staged attachment and must be used 'before it is used,' giving clear contextual timing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other stages, but the lifecycle wording makes the appropriate use case evident.

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