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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully clarifies the blast radius: only the locked type is removed, contact values are kept. That is exactly the reassurance an agent needs for a destructive-flagged mutation, though it doesn't say whether the change is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, effect front-loaded, with the value-preservation caveat immediately after. No filler.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations that already flag it destructive, the description supplies the key consequence (type becomes inferred) and the non-destructive outcome for values. Minor gaps remain on reversibility and on what happens if the field is not currently locked.

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 100% and the schema already documents the single 'field' parameter and points to list_fields as the source of names. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: removes a field's locked type, and explains the resulting state (type re-guessed from values). An agent can tell this is the inverse of a lock/define operation, but the description never names define_field or list_fields as the counterpart, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 implies when this is relevant (when a field's type should go back to being inferred), but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites (must the field currently be locked?), or alternative. No routing to define_field for the opposite operation.

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