jira_delete_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement that deletion is permanent/irreversible, no permission requirements, and no error behavior — so it contributes no new behavioral context.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a one-parameter operation, though it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits irreversibility, permission needs, and failure modes. The destructiveHint annotation partly compensates, but the definition still leaves an agent without enough context to call this safely.

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 the schema itself documents the single `id` parameter, including its source ("from jira_list_attachments"). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete an attachment"), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling `delete_attachment` (non-prefixed) or from other delete siblings, leaving ambiguity about which namespace to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. The agent gets no signal about how the attachment id should be obtained or when deletion is appropriate versus using `jira_get_attachment_meta` first.

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