Delete an attachment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (DELETE) and authorization class, which provide some behavioral context. However, it does not describe the consequences (e.g., permanent deletion, cascade effects) or what the response contains. Since the output schema exists, the return value is partially covered, but additional behavioral details are missing.

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 very short (two sentences), which makes it concise. However, it is too brief and sacrifices important context like parameter usage and side effects. The technical note about the Paperclip operation is useful but not essential. Overall, it is adequately concise but could be more informative.

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 destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) and two parameters, the description should provide more context about consequences and parameter details. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, nor does it explain how to obtain the attachmentId. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks enough contextual information for safe and effective use.

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 has two parameters: 'body' (optional, no description) and 'path' (required object with 'attachmentId' string, no description in schema). The description does not explain these parameters or their values. With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the parameter names alone.

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 title and description clearly state the primary purpose: deleting an attachment. The description also specifies the HTTP method and path. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as pc_get_attachments_by_attachment_id_content or pc_post_companies_by_company_id_issues_by_issue_id_attachments, but since it is the only delete-attachment tool, the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 mentions authorization class 'board_or_agent', which provides some guidance on who can use the tool. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing an attachment ID from another tool), or situations where deletion might be inappropriate. The lack of usage context makes it harder for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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