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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real value beyond them: deletion is permanent, field values are lost, and deleting a link field cascades to its inverse relation. That cascade consequence is not conveyed anywhere in 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, zero filler, with the permanence warning front-loaded before the cascade caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with no output schema, the cascade note is the key missing piece and it is present, but the description leaves open whether a field can be addressed by name, whether references in views/formulas break, and what the call returns. Annotations carry the destructive flag, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 coverage is only 33% — just 'table' is documented as name-or-id — and the description adds nothing about baseId or whether 'field' accepts a name or only an id. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and here it supplies no parameter meaning at all.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a field and its values'), which distinguishes it from delete_records and delete_table by resource noun alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_field (to clear or retype a field) or delete_table, and no prerequisites or warnings about confirming before a permanent removal. The agent must infer the decision rule from the tool name.

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