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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the response reports how many issues lost a value, that the issues themselves are untouched, and that lead/admin permission is required. That is exactly the consequence-and-auth context a destructive mutation needs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the return-value explanation and the permission constraint. The parenthetical rationale ("because that number is what the decision was about") earns its place by explaining why the count matters.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return value, the non-effect on issues, and the authorization requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 100% and both parameters (name, projectKey) are documented with examples, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the field name beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 column from a project"), which separates it from set_project_field and list_project_fields in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 "Project lead or admin only" clause gives a prerequisite for calling it, which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to delete a field versus updating it via set_project_field, nor any warning about when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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