Delete Attachment

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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining that the action 'cannot be undone,' deletes 'ALL its versions,' and includes a prominent warning. It also advises on backup and verification, adding valuable behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 uses clear headings, bullet points, and a warning callout. It is concise and well-structured, with every sentence contributing useful information. No redundant filler or verbose explanations.

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 tool with an output schema and a comprehensive input schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites, and risk mitigation. It is fully complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool safely.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter attachment_id, including its purpose, how to find it (via get_attachments), an example, and a warning. The description's best practices add operational advice but do not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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 opens with 'Permanently delete an attachment from Confluence,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the action and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_upload_attachment, confluence_get_attachments, and confluence_download_attachment.

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 clear usage context with bulleted examples ('Remove outdated or incorrect attachments', 'Clean up duplicate files', 'Delete sensitive information') and explicit best practices including verifying the attachment ID with get_attachments, downloading a backup, and checking with content owners. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it, but for a destructive tool, the strong warning and prerequisites provide adequate guidance.

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