Permanently delete an OpenProject attachment by ID. Use confirm=true after reviewing the preview to apply deletion, since it cannot be undone.
Delete an attachment; this cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | false: preview only, nothing changes. true: applies it; get the user's approval of the preview first. | |
| attachment_id | Yes | Attachment id, from list_work_package_attachments. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is structured. The description's 'cannot be undone' reinforces irreversibility but adds nothing about the mandatory preview/approval flow, permission requirements, or side effects on related work package data, which are the details that would genuinely help.
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?
One short clause, front-loaded with the action and consequence, with zero filler. Its brevity is intentional, though it borders on under-specification given the irreversible nature of the operation.
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?
With rich annotations, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and no output schema, the essentials are present. What's missing is behavioral framing beyond 'cannot be undone' – notably that the call is a no-op unless confirm=true and that user approval of the preview is expected – which the agent must discover from the schema alone.
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% and both parameters carry meaningful descriptions, including the crucial confirm-preview semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('attachment'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from other deletion siblings (delete_news, delete_reminder, delete_work_package) beyond the resource name, but the resource word is enough to disambiguate here.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_attachment, list_work_package_attachments, or any restoration path. The preview-then-confirm workflow lives only in the schema's 'confirm' description, not in the tool description, so the description itself gives no procedural context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.