Delete GoHighLevel Custom Field V2

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the need for confirmation (confirm=true) and owner approval before execution, and includes the HTTP endpoint. These details go beyond the annotations, though it could describe post-deletion effects.

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 efficiently conveys the core action, endpoint, and key requirements. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: action, prerequisites, and endpoint. It could be more explicit about the V2 specificity, but overall it is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 resource (Custom Fields V2 field). It is specific with verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the V1 version (sibling tool ghl_delete_custom_field), which could cause confusion.

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 mentions the requirement for 'confirm: true' and 'owner approval', giving some usage context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for V1 fields) or alternatives like ghl_update_custom_field_v2 for disabling.

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