memorable_delete_attachment

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey irreversibility through "purge" (beyond a plain delete), which is useful signal for a destructive operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the parent memory is affected, or what happens if the attachment is already gone.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction because "Purge and delete" is redundant phrasing rather than two distinct operations.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the action and target are clear. It leaves gaps an agent would care about — permanence of the deletion, required permissions, and the parent-memory relationship between the two IDs.

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%, so both memory_id and attachment_id are already documented as positive integer identifiers. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it doesn't clarify the relationship between the two IDs (e.g. that the attachment must belong to that memory). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: delete an attachment belonging to a memory. The word "attachment" plus "from a memory" distinguishes it from the sibling memorable_delete_memory, so an agent can tell which object is being destroyed without opening the schema. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't name the sibling or the scoping condition explicitly.

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 tool versus memorable_delete_memory or memorable_list_attachments, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the parent memory must exist, or that the attachment ID must be resolved first). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the two required parameters.

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