Delete Attachment

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

The description discloses that the operation is 'destructive for that attachment', consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true). It also explains the side effect of refetching the parent item and the return format (updated item summary with redaction rules), adding value beyond 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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and identifiers, then efficiently covering side effects and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the operation, required parameters, side effects, and return value despite lacking an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for a delete action, though sibling differentiation could be slightly stronger.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The tool description largely restates these (e.g., 'itemId for parent item', 'attachmentId from item metadata'), adding little new meaning beyond the schema. Thus 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 clearly states the action 'Delete an attachment from its parent item' and specifies the required identifiers (itemId plus attachmentId). It distinguishes itself from siblings like keychain_get_attachment (retrieve) and keychain_create_attachment (create) by focusing on deletion.

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 notes that the attachment id comes from item attachment metadata, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives such as keychain_get_attachment for non-destructive retrieval.

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