bookstack_attachments_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the action is destructive ('Delete permanently') and irreversible ('cannot be undone'), which are essential for safe use. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and its irreversible nature without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion with no output schema and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the irreversible nature well but lacks details on permissions, potential errors, or what happens upon success, which are important for a deletion tool in this context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented as 'Attachment ID to delete'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 specific action ('Delete an attachment permanently') and identifies the resource ('attachment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'bookstack_attachments_list' (list) or 'bookstack_attachments_update' (update). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage context through 'permanently (this action cannot be undone)', suggesting caution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bookstack_recycle_bin_delete_permanently' or other deletion tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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