jira_delete_attachmentDelete a Jira attachment by its numeric attachment ID to remove unwanted files from a Jira issue.
Delete a Jira attachment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attachment_id | Yes | Numeric attachment ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / properties / attachment_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Attachment ID to delete"New value: +"Numeric attachment ID to delete"Input schema / properties / attachment_id / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / attachment_id / patternAdded value: +"^\\d+$"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds nothing beyond the name at all — no note that deletion is permanent/irreversible, no permission requirements, no side effects on issues or comments referencing the attachment.
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 five-word sentence with zero padding — front-loaded verb and resource. It is efficient, though the terseness verges on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It still lacks any irreversibility or permission context that an agent authorizing a delete would want before acting.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ("Numeric attachment ID to delete"), the schema fully documents the input, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g., how to obtain the attachment ID) beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a Jira attachment"), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling attachment tools like jira_download_attachment and jira_upload_attachment. It stops short of naming a sibling or scope explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives (e.g., why not download or re-upload instead of deleting). The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.