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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: the deletion is blocked while the field is referenced by a condition or metadata value. This is exactly the kind of dependency constraint an agent needs before invoking a destructive delete.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then a short when-to-use bullet, then the critical deletion constraint and discovery hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage condition, prerequisite, and discovery path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 both UUID parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the get-template-info hint for finding a dynamic field UUID but adds no new syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: delete a dynamic field from a template. It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling create/update/delete tools for other template components.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool (user asks to remove a dynamic field) and gives a key precondition: fields referenced by conditions or metadata values cannot be deleted until references are removed. It also points to get-template-info as the discovery step.

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