smartsuite_delete_field

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, but the description adds 'removes the field and its data' and explains the dry-run preview behavior via the confirm parameter. No contradictions with annotations.

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, dense paragraph with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently covers prerequisites, behavior, and an example.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites, destructive behavior, dry-run mechanism, and a use case. It could mention the response or success indication, but overall is sufficiently 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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role in dry-run vs actual deletion, going beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Delete a field from a table by slug', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_field, update_field, and restore_field by specifying the destructive nature and the refusal of system 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?

The description explicitly lists required modes and environment variables, and provides a concrete use case (replacing a formula field with a rollup). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context makes it clear when to use vs other field operations.

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