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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description must carry the burden. It adds valuable context: soft-delete behavior (removes schema but preserves values) and the constraint that system fields cannot be removed. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and important caveats (soft-delete, system field restriction). Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is destructive (although soft-delete), and the description lacks crucial operational details: what happens if the field doesn't exist, how to specify the object/key, error handling, or confirmation of removal. The low parameter coverage and lack of output schema make this description insufficient for safe self-service use.

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 lists three parameters (object, key, account) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0% because the description does not explain any of them. The description does not mention what 'key' or 'object' represent, leaving the agent to guess. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 removes a CUSTOM field, with a specific verb and resource, and specifies the soft-delete nuance and restriction on system fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_add_field or crm_update_field.

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 implies usage for removing custom fields and explicitly states system fields cannot be removed, but it does not reference alternative tools or provide exclusions beyond system fields. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool compared to crm_delete_object or crm_update_field.

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