Remove Domain From Field

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

注解已声明 destructiveHint=true，描述进一步补充了操作前提——必须启用破坏性开关并设置 confirm=true，这属于注解未覆盖的操作性行为。未说明移除后是否影响数据本身或可能产生何种副作用。

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?

单句表达，前置核心动作，无冗余内容，简洁且信息集中。

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?

输出 Schema 已存在，无需解释返回值；注解覆盖了破坏性和幂等性。但 4 个参数中仅说明 confirm，且未提供使用场景对比，对正确调用而言信息仍不完整。

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 描述覆盖率为 0%，4 个参数中仅 confirm 参数在描述中有所说明，dataset_path、field_name、subtype_code 三个参数的含义完全未提及，描述远不足以补偿 Schema 的缺失。

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?

明确说明了具体操作：移除字段的属性域分配。名称本身也能与 assign_domain_to_field 区分，但描述未明确提及或对比同类工具。

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?

说明了使用前提：需要破坏性开关且 confirm=true。但未说明何时应使用此工具而非其他领域相关工具，也未提供排除条件。

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