smartsuite_remove_layout_field

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint:false, so the description carries the burden and does so richly: it discloses the auth requirement (readwrite/admin plus SMARTSUITE_ENABLE_SCHEMA_WRITE), that the default is a dry-run preview gated by confirm:true, and the important side effect that removing a live field's placement hides it from the view without touching data.

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?

Purpose and the delete-vs-unplace distinction are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler. It is dense and slightly long, but each clause (auth, orphan rationale, modes, dry run) supplies distinct actionable information.

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, so the description compensates by describing what a dry run returns (a list of orphans). For a destructive-adjacent schema-write tool with a confirmation gate, all the context an agent needs to call it safely is present.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the mutual-exclusivity intent of slug vs removeOrphans and the effect of the dry run, adding decision-level meaning the per-parameter schema strings do not.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb+resource ('Remove a field's PLACEMENT from the record-view layout') and immediately draws the boundary against the obvious confusion — it does not delete the field. It is clearly distinguishable from delete_field and move_layout_field, both of which it names.

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?

It states the primary use case (clearing orphaned layout entries) and explains why the sibling tools cannot do the job — delete_field 404s and move_layout_field refuses unknown slugs. It also tells the agent exactly how to invoke the two modes (removeOrphans:true vs slug) and that a dry run previews either way.

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