mailchimp_merge_fields_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a behavioral constraint (built-in fields cannot be deleted), but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects existing data, or any permission requirements. The note adds some value beyond the schema, but the deletion's permanence and impact are left implicit.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; the note about built-in fields is concise and immediately relevant. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical limitation. It doesn't describe what happens on success or failure, but for a delete operation the outcome is generally understood. The built-in field note adds important context that makes it reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the merge_id should refer to a custom field, not a built-in one. This goes beyond the schema's 'Merge field ID to delete' and helps the agent avoid invalid inputs.

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 a merge field.' This is specific and uses a direct verb+resource combination. The additional note about built-in fields being excluded further clarifies the tool's scope, distinguishing it from other merge field operations like update or create.

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 a key usage guideline: built-in fields (EMAIL, FNAME, LNAME) cannot be deleted, implying this tool should only be used for custom merge fields. This gives a clear 'when not to use' context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update for modifying fields.

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