sophos_strip_quarantine_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that attachments are stripped and the message is released, but does not explain whether the original message is preserved, if the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or side effects like audit logging. For a modifying tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, concise sentence. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. However, it could be more structured with separate lines for context and behavior. Still, it is not verbose.

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 modifies quarantined messages with potential impact, but the description omits important context: how to obtain the message_id (via search), whether the action is logged, what happens if for_recipients is omitted (defaults to all), and if attachments can be restored later (via reattach tool). Without an output schema, the description should fill these gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters (e.g., 'Tenant UUID', 'List of attachment filenames to strip'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema—no constraints, formats, or usage examples. Therefore score at baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'strip' and clearly identifies the resource as 'attachments from a pre-delivery quarantined message' and the action 'release it to specified recipients'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_delete_quarantine_messages, sophos_release_quarantine_messages, and sophos_download_quarantine_attachments.

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 use when you want to selectively remove attachments before releasing a quarantined message, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like sophos_release_quarantine_messages (which releases without stripping) or sophos_delete_quarantine_messages. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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