delete_entity_attachment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms the delete is scoped to three entity types but omits whether deletion is irreversible, whether the solution's confirm flag is required in practice, and what permission is needed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse given the destructive nature, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum flag irreversibility or the confirm expectation. It covers only the entity scope, leaving confirmation behavior, permissions, and post-delete state unaddressed.

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 50%: entityType and confirm are documented in the schema, while entityId and attachmentId are bare. The description only restates the three entity types already enumerated in the schema, adding no new meaning such as ID formats or where attachmentId comes from.

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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (file/attachment) plus the scope of entity types it applies to (project, portfolio, goal). An agent can distinguish it from delete_issue_attachment by the entity scope, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus delete_issue_attachment, list_entity_attachments, or download_entity_attachment, and no mention of prerequisites such as ownership or the confirm flag. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.

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