locations_delete_custom_field

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

Annotations explicitly declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which already covers the destructive and idempotent nature. The description simply says 'Delete', which is consistent with the annotations and adds no additional behavioral context such as what gets destroyed, reversibility, or side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches beyond the structured data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it is borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise in a helpful way. Still, it earns a 4 for being terse and to the point.

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 operation with no output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It fails to distinguish this tool from the similar custom_fields_delete_custom_field, does not mention that it's scoped to locations, and offers no guidance on expected return values or consequences. While schema covers parameters and annotations cover danger, the description leaves an agent guessing about applicability and side effects.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (id and locationId) at 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics; the schema already documents that locationId defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (Delete) and the resource (Custom Field), so it's a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling custom_fields_delete_custom_field tool, which performs a very similar action. Without context, an agent cannot tell which delete tool is appropriate for a given scenario.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only offers the imperative 'Delete Custom Field' with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions. An agent has no information about when this is the correct tool among the dozens of delete tools in the sibling list.

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