smartsuite_delete_field

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses the required env flags, that deletion also destroys the field's data, that system fields are refused, that SmartSuite performs no reference repair and emits no warning, exactly which reference classes are scanned (and that automations/other tables are not), and that execution is preview-only without confirm:true.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then behavioral risk, then the confirm gate; nearly every clause carries distinct information. Slightly dense/long, but the length is justified by the amount of behavioral disclosure it must carry for a destructive schema 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what the response contains (the in-table reference list across formulas, AI prompts, rollups/lookups, filters, display logic, view configs) and its limits (automations and other tables excluded). Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 slug, applicationId, and confirm are already documented structurally. The description reinforces the slug-only identification and the confirm gate, but adds little semantic detail (no slug format or lookup guidance) beyond what the schema states — 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?

States a precise verb+resource+key ('Delete a field from a table by slug') and immediately scopes it with the mode/env prerequisites, so an agent can distinguish it from create_field, update_field, and restore_field without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage scenario (replace a formula field with a rollup: create the rollup, then delete the old formula), the preconditions for invoking it, and the dry-run-by-default behavior. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when *not* to delete, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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