delete_reference_list_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats 'mutation deleteReferenceListColumn' and lists a variable, adding no information about side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to associated data. This is a tautology of the tool name with no added behavioral context.

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 short, but the structure is a jumble: 'Reference Lists · mutation deleteReferenceListColumn. Variables: id. Example variables: ...' It reads like auto-generated metadata, not a human-written explanation. The sentence about variables repeats the schema. The content is minimal, but the lack of organization and substance makes it less than useful.

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?

This is a delete mutation with no output schema and simple parameters, but the description still fails to adequately explain the operation. It doesn't specify what a reference list column is, what the id refers to, or any consequences of deletion. Given the presence of related sibling tools, more context is needed to avoid confusion. The description is too sparse to be considered 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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example for 'id' and mentions it, but omits the optional customer_slug parameter. The example placeholder is trivial and doesn't deepen understanding beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents both parameters, the description meets the baseline without adding much.

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 names the operation as 'deleteReferenceListColumn' and labels it a mutation, clearly indicating a delete action on a reference list column. The verb and resource are specific, and the tool name itself disambiguates from sibling tools like delete_reference_list or delete_reference_list_row. However, it doesn't provide an explicit statement of what a reference list column is, but the name suffices.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrasts with sibling delete operations. Only an example variable is provided, which is not usage guidance.

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