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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: this is a soft delete, it frees the workspace field quota, attached studies are explicitly NOT deleted, and the call may return needs_confirmation. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope before usage conditions, then the confirmation protocol. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics (soft delete), quota effect, non-destructive boundaries (studies survive), id sourcing, and the confirmation round-trip. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so fieldId, workspace, and approvalId are already documented; the description's 'Field ids come from prism_fields_list' largely restates the fieldId schema text. It adds a little value by linking the confirmation flow to approvalId implicitly, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the 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 and its whole canvas') and immediately scopes the blast radius, so an agent can distinguish it from prism_fields_update or prism_fields_get without opening any schema. It also clarifies that the canvas is removed alongside the field, which is not inferable from the name.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('user is done with an exploration or one was created by mistake') and names the prerequisite source of ids ('Field ids come from prism_fields_list'). It also prescribes the follow-up action for the needs_confirmation path ('name the field and wait'), leaving nothing to inference.

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