planka_delete_custom_field

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as irreversibility, side effects on cards or other entities, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, the description should carry this burden but does not.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It is front-loaded but could be expanded with relevant context without losing conciseness.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, the effect on related data, or the expected outcome, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not add any context beyond what the schema already provides for custom_field_id, such as format, constraints, or usage tips.

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 clearly states 'Delete a custom field,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like planka_delete_custom_field_group or planka_delete_custom_field_value, which have similar naming and purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not explain when deletion is appropriate versus using update, or any prerequisites like ensuring no cards depend on the custom field.

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