Delete Attachment

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the operation is destructive 'for that attachment', it refetches the parent item, and returns the updated item summary with redaction rules. This provides behavioral detail beyond the binary 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and inputs. The second sentence covers side effects and return. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description explains the return (updated item summary with redaction rules) and the side effects (refetching parent). Given the simplicity (3 parameters, straightforward purpose), this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand behavior.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the burden on the description is low. The description mentions itemId and attachmentId but adds only minor context (e.g., attachmentId source). It does not elaborate on the 'reveal' parameter. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Delete an attachment'), the resource ('from its parent item'), and the required identifiers ('using itemId plus attachmentId'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like keychain_delete_item by focusing specifically on attachments.

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 explains the source of the attachmentId ('from item attachment metadata') and the destructive nature. It implies usage when you have both item and attachment IDs, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like keychain_delete_item or keychain_edit_folder. Still clear enough for appropriate use.

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