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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and irreversibility profile is covered. The description's added value is the required auth scope, which is genuinely useful, but it does not explain deletion side effects such as what happens to references.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter delete with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient: action plus auth scope is stated. A note on side effects or error behavior would complete it, but nothing essential 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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. 'By ID' restates the schema's 'Custom field value ID' without adding format, lookup, or constraint details.

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 (Delete) and resource (custom field value), scoped by ID. It is distinguishable from delete_custom_field_definition and update_custom_field_value by the resource name, though it doesn't explicitly call out those siblings.

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 required scope (custom_fields:write), which acts as a prerequisite, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Usage is only implied from the verb and scope requirement.

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