Delete an invoice-specific attachment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the file is 'permanently removed from storage' and showing the HTTP DELETE endpoint. This discloses the irreversible nature of the operation, which is valuable for an AI agent.

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 compact and includes the important permanent-deletion warning plus the endpoint reference. The first sentence repeats the title, which is a minor redundancy, but overall the structure is front-loaded and economical. It does not waste space with unnecessary details.

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 simple delete operation, the description provides the essential context: what is being deleted, the fact that deletion is permanent, and the endpoint structure clarifying the ID roles. There is no output schema, but none is strictly necessary for a delete operation. Missing details like error behavior would be nice but are not critical for tool selection.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including id, attachment_id, and administration. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is therefore appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 specific verb 'delete', the resource ('document-specific attachment'), and the container ('sales invoice'). The phrase 'permanently removed from storage' further clarifies the nature of the operation. This distinguishes the tool from sibling upload/download attachment tools without ambiguity.

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 provides a clear context: this tool deletes a specific attachment from a sales invoice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the targeted resource scope is clear and the operation is unambiguous. Because it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, it is slightly below a perfect score.

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