locations_delete_custom_value

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description 'Delete Custom Value' aligns with these but adds no further behavioral context such as permanence, side effects, or scope of deletion. With annotations present, the description contributes nothing beyond them, so the score is low.

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 extremely concise—three words—with no redundant phrasing. The action is front-loaded and unambiguous. It earns a high score for brevity, though it lacks explanatory substance. It suffers from under-specification rather than verbosity, which is preferable but still limits its usefulness.

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 is drastically insufficient. It fails to mention that the deletion is irreversible, what a custom value is in this domain, or any cascading effects. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without knowing the implications, especially given the presence of related create/update tools. The description provides no added context beyond the obvious.

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% (both id and locationId have meaningful descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline is 3 for high coverage. The locationId default behavior ('Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted') is already in the schema, so the tool description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (custom value), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like locations_delete_custom_field or other delete operations, relying on the tool name for distinction. The verb-object structure is specific but lacks context on scope or uniqueness.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of related operations like create or update. It simply restates the action without any conditional or contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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