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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that stored values are cleared (data loss scope) and that approval requirements are admin-configurable while business workflow approvals always apply. That is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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; the destructive consequence is front-loaded in the first sentence. The approval sentence is slightly tangential but short enough to earn its place as a caveat.

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?

Output schema and annotations are rich, so return values and destructiveness needn't be re-explained. However, for a destructive tool the description omits what happens to records/sites that currently reference the field's values and whether the deletion can be undone, which an agent would want before invoking.

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 0% and the single parameter `id` has only format/pattern constraints, no semantic description. The description never mentions the identifier or clarifies whether it is a custom field definition ID versus a value ID, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 ("Remove a custom field") plus the key side effect ("clear its stored values"), so an agent can tell it apart from update_custom_field or delete_site_custom_field at a glance.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (update_custom_field to rename vs. delete to remove), and no warning about prerequisites such as checking whether values are still referenced. The approval sentence describes governance, not usage selection.

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