confluence_attachment_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key destructive behaviors: default is moving to trash, and setting purge to true permanently removes (requiring admin rights). This exceeds the minimal expectation and contextualizes the delete operation's consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the critical purge nuance. Every sentence contributes value; the CLI mirror reference is a compact way to signal parity with an existing command. No wasted words.

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 100% schema coverage, the tool's purpose, and the crucial purge behavior, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks an explicit note about return values, but no output schema exists, and for a delete operation this is not an obvious gap. It could arguably mention irreversibility beyond trash, but that is already inferred from 'purge'.

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%, so both parameters (attachment_id, purge) are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond echoing the purge parameter's behavior; it restates what the schema already says. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete a Confluence attachment') and specifies the identifier ('by ID'). This resolves ambiguity with sibling tools like confluence_attachment_download or confluence_attachment_update, and the verb 'Delete' is unambiguous.

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 provides guidance on the purge behavior (e.g., 'permanently purge instead of moving to trash' and 'requires space admin'), which helps decide when to set purge. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so the guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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