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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: cascade deletion of all field values, the FULL access requirement, the 204 response code, and the required API-key scope. It stops short of stating irreversibility or error behavior, but it is notably informative for a deletion tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cascade effect, then permission and scope. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no waste.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: cascade deletion, FULL access requirement, 204 response, and API scope. The main remaining gap is the semantics of the required identifier parameter, but overall the definition is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the required 'identifier' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description does not compensate by clarifying whether identifier refers to a field ID, name, or slug, leaving a required parameter semantically underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a custom field') and clarifies the cascade ('and all its values'), making the operation clearly distinct from siblings like pm_create_custom_field and pm_update_custom_field. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the prerequisite 'Requires FULL access' provides context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as updating or recreating a field. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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