delete_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the destructive nature via 'Delete', but does not disclose irreversibility, error behavior for non-existent IDs, cascading effects, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, target, and scope efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter adequately. However, with no output schema and no behavioral notes, an agent cannot predict the response format or error handling, which leaves some gaps for a complete call workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter attachment_id is already fully documented ('The attachment ID to delete'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is specific and unambiguous: 'Delete an attachment by ID' clearly names the verb (delete), the resource (attachment), and the key identifier (ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_attachment, update_attachment, and create_attachment without needing to name them.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description: use this when you need to delete an attachment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as delete_memo for deleting a memo, leaving some inference to the agent.

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