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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: the deletion is soft, existing records keep their data, and the field stops participating in validation and responses. That is the key fact an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the operation and its consequence of record retention are front-loaded in the order an agent needs them.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus annotations give an agent nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only omission is whether a soft-deleted field can be restored or how to do so, which would be a useful but not essential addition.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, including an example ID format ('FLD12'). The description adds nothing about field_id, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema does all the work here.

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+resource ('Soft-delete a field'), which is unambiguous among siblings like update_field, list_fields and create_field. It does not name a sibling for contrast, but the operation itself is distinct enough that an agent needs no cross-referencing.

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 word 'soft-delete' implicitly tells the agent this is not a hard removal and that the data survives, which is usage-relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, live traffic impact), and no mention of any alternative path for permanently removing a field.

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