vk_delete_tasks_95df65ce0d48

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, that no request body is usually needed, and that path/query parameters are top-level. However, it does not state that deletion is permanent or irreversible, nor does it describe the response. It adds some useful behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but it repeats 'Delete an attachment' twice, which is unnecessary. The rest is informative but could be tighter.

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 description covers the endpoint, auth, body, and aliases, which is sufficient for a simple delete operation. Missing are explicit requiredness and response expectations. Given no output schema, a brief note on return values would help, but it's not critically absent.

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 lists all parameter variants (id, attachmentID, attachmentId, attachment_id), so coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, and that parameters are top-level fields. However, it does not clarify the required status of id and attachmentID, which the schema marks as optional despite the endpoint implying importance.

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 an attachment') and identifies the exact REST endpoint (DELETE /tasks/{id}/attachments/{attachmentID}). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vikunja_delete_task, which deletes tasks rather than 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 gives context ('Raw Vikunja REST proxy', authentication required) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The purpose is implied by the endpoint, but no explicit comparison to sibling tools is given.

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