spoolman_delete_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It states 'Remove' but does not clarify that the action is permanent, what happens if the key or entity_type is invalid, or whether it affects data beyond the specified field. The description is minimal and lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description successfully communicates the primary purpose, and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, it omits details about the operation's outcome (e.g., return value, success/failure behavior) and whether deletion is permanent. Given the low complexity, it is mostly complete but leaves minor 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 input schema fully describes both parameters: key ('The field key to delete') and entity_type (enum with description). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add param details. The tool description itself offers no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline 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 'Remove a custom extra field from an entity type' clearly states the action (remove), the resource (custom extra field), and the scope (entity type). It distinguishes this from sibling delete tools that remove entire entities (delete_filament, delete_spool) and from upsert_field which adds/updates 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., field must exist) or exclusions (e.g., only for custom fields, not standard fields). The description is purely a statement of the action without contextual usage direction.

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