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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade to referencing relations, which is exactly the kind of 'what else gets destroyed' context the annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating irreversibility or the project-scoping refusal behavior.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the cascade consequence immediately following.

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 single-parameter delete with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the action and its side effect adequately. The remaining gap is irreversibility/permission context, which is partly implied by destructiveHint.

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 id parameter description already repeats the cascade note, so the prose adds essentially nothing beyond the schema. The expectedProjectId override semantics are documented only in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Deletes a field') so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighboring destructive tools such as delete_field_lineage or delete_relation, so sibling disambiguation is left to the name alone.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (delete_field_lineage, update_field, delete_relation) nor any precondition. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Deletes'.

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