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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the two-phase confirm/preview mode and the fact that the deletion cascades to the field's value on every card — neither is derivable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, with the destructive effect front-loaded and the confirm requirement 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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the critical call semantics (preview vs commit, cascade). It could still say whether the deletion is reversible or what permissions are required, but for a 2-parameter tool it is close to 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 50%: confirm already has a thorough schema description that the prose largely restates, while fieldId is undocumented in both schema and description. With 2 parameters and one half-documented, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (deletes), the exact resource (a custom field), and the blast radius (its value on every card), which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete_* tools that target different resources like delete_label or delete_list.

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 supplies the confirm:true precondition, which is a real usage instruction, but gives no guidance on when deletion is preferable to keeping the field or using update_custom_field instead, and no warning about irreversibility or when-not-to-use.

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