attachment_delete

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

Without annotations, the description fully compensates by detailing the return format, the survival of ownerName even on failure, NotFound error, permanence, and the need for sync_trigger. This is comprehensive and exceeds expectations.

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 well-structured with the main action first, followed by exclusions, return behavior, errors, permanence warning, sync note, and example. Although slightly long, each sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return format, error behavior, side effects (permanence, sync requirement), and usage hints. It provides all necessary context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by stating that exactly one of taskId or projectId should be provided, and that attachmentId comes from attachment_list. It also provides an example call, which clarifies parameter usage.

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 verb 'remove' and resource 'attachment' from a task or project. It distinguishes from attachment_save_to_path but not from the sibling attachment_remove, which could cause confusion for the AI agent.

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 explicitly advises against using for retrieval and recommends attachment_save_to_path as an alternative. It also warns about permanence. However, it does not address the existence of sibling attachment_remove, leaving ambiguity.

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