delete_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (delete) without mentioning whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related transactions, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it quickly scannable.

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 delete tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the one-line description is insufficient. It doesn't address the consequences of deletion, such as whether the file is removed from storage or what happens to transaction associations, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'id' (The attachment ID). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 'Delete a PocketSmith attachment' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (attachment), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_attachment or list_attachments. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from unassign_attachment, which could be confused with 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unassign_attachment or update_attachment. There are no prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or context clues about the appropriate usage scenario.

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