delete_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clarifies the tool removes the entire complex field including its runs, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or undo capability. The behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second explains the parameter. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. 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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains the action and parameter origin. It could mention what happens if the field doesn't exist, but overall is complete for a focused deletion tool.

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 provides only a title and type for field_id. The description adds crucial context: it is a 'Positional identifier returned by list_fields' with an example format 'field_0'. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and clarifies the expected value.

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 tool removes a 'complete complex field (begin through end runs)' from the document. The verb 'Remove' and resource 'complex field' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like add_field, get_field, or delete_paragraph.

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 implies usage context by noting the field_id is 'returned by list_fields', establishing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other delete tools) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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