Remove an attachment from a page by specifying collective ID, page ID, and filename. Returns the deleted attachment's ID so you can restore it if needed.
Delete an attachment from a page. Returns the deleted attachment including its id, which restore_attachment needs to undo this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | Attachment filename to delete. | |
| collectiveId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the deleted attachment is returned and that its ID is needed for restore_attachment, adding useful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not mention all side effects, but the annotations cover core behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core action and follows with relevant return information.
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?
The tool is simple and the description covers the core action and return value, but missing parameter context and lack of error/edge-case guidance leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool with three required parameters.
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?
Only filename is described in the schema, and the description does not clarify the roles of collectiveId and pageId. With schema coverage at 33%, the description should compensate by explaining parameter relationships, but it does not.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete an attachment') and the target resource ('from a page'), and distinguishes this from related operations like restore_attachment, list_attachments, and upload_attachment.
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 identifies when to use the tool (to delete an attachment) and references the complementary restore_attachment operation, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternative deletion/restoration flows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.