delete_work_item_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 'Delete an attachment from a work item,' which repeats the name and implies destruction but does not mention permanence, required permissions, side effects, or error behavior. For a destructive action, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely efficient: one purpose sentence, one practical hint, and a clean Args list. No redundant information or filler. The structure makes it easy to scan and extract key instructions.

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 delete operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the exact action, all parameters, and how to get the attachment_id. It lacks any mention of return values or irreversibility, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly, given the simplicity and the purpose statement.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explicitly explains each parameter: project_id as UUID of the project, work_item_id as UUID of the work item, and attachment_id as UUID of the attachment to delete. It also provides the crucial tip to use list_work_item_attachments to fetch the attachment_id, fully compensating for the schema's lack of semantics.

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 opens with 'Delete an attachment from a work item,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact delete operation, and the only other attachment-related tools are read/list/download/upload, leaving no ambiguity about the intent.

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 clear context by specifying the action and adding a practical prerequisite: 'Use list_work_item_attachments to get the attachment_id.' This tells the agent how to obtain a required ID, which is helpful usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it misses the full 'when vs when-not' guidance.

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