confluence_attachment_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers the key behavioral difference between moving to trash and permanent purge, including the requirement for space admin on purge. However, it does not describe other traits like whether the operation is reversible (e.g., trash recovery) or any side effects.

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: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds key nuance about purge. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 simple delete tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the main behavioral option. However, it lacks information about return values, error cases, or post-deletion state, which are needed for full completeness.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description adds minor value by restating the purge behavior and mentioning the CLI mirror, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Delete a Confluence attachment by ID', which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `confluence_attachment_list` and `confluence_attachment_upload`, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use the related `confluence_delete` or other attachment tools. The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is inappropriate.

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