Delete Custom Field Definition

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds substantial context: 'Permanently removes the custom field definition. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses error behavior with specific HTTP status codes and conditions (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond the structured 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 comprehensive but not bloated; it covers purpose, prerequisites, behavior, errors, parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes all necessary caveats. The only minor issue is that the 'Required parameters' sentence and API endpoint sentence could be considered slightly redundant, but overall every sentence adds value.

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?

For a delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, destructive behavior, error handling, parameter resolution, and the exact API endpoint. An agent would be fully equipped to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explains that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and emphasizes that id must identify an existing parent record (to be resolved via list/show). This provides important operational context not present in 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 opens with 'Deletes a custom field definition for the specified Procore company,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_custom_field_definition' and 'show_custom_field_definition_company' by stating the delete operation and the target resource.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the company_id default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would elevate it to a 5.

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