delete_transaction_attachment

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that the operation destroys data. The description adds the important caveat 'Irreversible,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It also identifies what is destroyed, but it does not describe response behavior, error conditions, or any cascading effects on the associated transaction.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, and the second delivers a meaningful caution about irreversibility. There is no filler, no unnecessary restatement of the schema, and the important warning is placed immediately after the verb.

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 one-parameter destructive action with full schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description is nearly complete: it names the object, the effect, and the irreversible nature of the operation. The main gaps are explicit sibling distinction and expected return behavior, but those are minor for such a simple delete operation.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, file_id, with the description 'ID of the file attachment to delete,' so the semantic burden is already carried by the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 and resource, 'Delete a transaction file attachment,' which clearly distinguishes it from broader transaction deletion tools like delete_transaction or delete_transactions_bulk. It is unambiguous about what action is performed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, but the resource phrase is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as detaching a file vs. deleting the entire transaction, or when to avoid using it. The action is only stated directly, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and schema. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routes mentioned.

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