custom_fields_delete_custom_field

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic delete action—no mention of permanence, side effects on related data, or whether deletion fails for referenced fields. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 five-word phrase with zero redundancy. It is extremely concise and front-loads the core action, making it easy to scan. Every word carries meaning.

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 simple delete operation with one required id parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It doesn't mention return values, error conditions, or the effect on dependent entities, but the destructive and idempotent annotations mitigate the safety gap. Still, it lacks any contextual detail that would help an agent ensure correct usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides only 'By Id', which merely echoes the parameter name. It does not clarify the format, origin, or any constraints (e.g., that it must be an existing custom field id). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Delete Custom Field By Id' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (custom field), and the identifier used. It distinguishes from sibling tools like custom_fields_delete_custom_field_folder and other custom field operations (create, update, get). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no mention of related tools that might be more appropriate. There is no indication of when deletion is appropriate or what to consider before calling it. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the operation name.

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