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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key limitation (last field cannot be deleted) and the flexibility of accepting ID or name. However, it omits other important aspects such as irreversibility, potential data loss for entries, or error handling, making the disclosure partial but not trivial.

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 two short, direct sentences. It front-loads the action and includes the essential limitation without any redundant wording. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover expected outcomes and side effects. It explains the deletion action and a constraint, but does not state whether the operation is permanent, whether it affects existing data in entries, or what a successful result looks like. These are material gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'field' parameter as 'Feld-ID oder Feldname', and the description merely repeats this. It adds no information about 'tracker_id', which is left undescribed in both the schema and the description. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter and provides no new semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Loescht ein Feld eines Trackers' (deletes a field of a tracker). It specifies deletion by field ID or name, which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_card or delete_column. The action and resource are unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context—deleting fields of a tracker—and includes a restriction: 'Das letzte Feld kann nicht geloescht werden' (the last field cannot be deleted), serving as a when-not condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or elaborate on situations favoring this tool over others, missing the top-tier guidance.

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