Delete a specific attachment from a ticket by supplying the ticket UUID and attachment UUID. Permanently removes the file from the ticket.
Delete an attachment from a ticket.
Args: ticket_id: The ticket UUID. attachment_id: The attachment UUID to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| attachment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and does not mention that deletion is likely irreversible, what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects might occur.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise, clearly formatted argument list. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.
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 two required parameters are explainedaaa88 and an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations, the description could usefully mention irreversibility, permissions, or how to obtain valid attachment IDs.
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 0%, so the description's role is important. It does clarify that ticket_id is the ticket UUID and attachment_id is the attachment UUID to delete, adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, it omits details like the relationship between the two IDs or any validation requirements.
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 exact action: 'Delete an attachment from a ticket.' It identifies the verb, resource, and object, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like wetrack_add_ticket_attachment and wetrack_get_ticket_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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing attachments first or verifying that the attachment belongs to the ticket. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.