Delete Attachment

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

The description simply restates the action 'Delete' without adding behavioral depth. Although annotations mark it as destructive and idempotent, the description does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or any side effects on related data, missing the opportunity to add context beyond annotations.

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 concise, containing only the core action and an Arg list, with no redundant sentences. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity leaves out essential details, which is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 operation with no output schema, the description should explain the result of deletion, permanence, and any impact on associated pages or spaces. It provides none, causing significant gaps for the agent to predict the tool's behavior. The presence of annotations mitigates some risk, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section says 'attachment_id: Attachment ID', which essentially repeats the parameter's title from the schema. It provides no details on where to find the ID, its format, or any constraints, insufficient for a single required parameter.

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 states 'Delete an attachment' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_page, delete_blogpost) by naming 'attachment' as the resource. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an attachment, which would strengthen clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing attachment ID) or context where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate selection.

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