Delete Custom Field

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Permanently delete', cascade effect, locked-field deletion permission, and the specific success response (`{}`). It thoroughly discloses the operational implications, which is highly valuable given the destructive action.

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 efficient sentences, each providing essential information: action, consequence, condition, and return value. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one param and no output schema, the description fully covers the operational context: what happens, who can delete locked fields, and what to expect on success. There are no significant gaps.

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 covers the only parameter with a clear description (including a type and example). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Permanently delete a custom field') and the resource affected ('from the workspace'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the cascading removal ('removes the field from all tasks and projects'). This differentiates it from create/update/get operations on custom fields.

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 clear contextual guidance, including the permanent nature and the effect on all tasks/projects. It also mentions the locked-field condition, which affects when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_custom_field or other alternatives, though the usage is strongly implied.

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