Fields: delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the 'from an entity' scoping and says nothing about permanence, whether stored field values are destroyed, or what permissions are required for a destructive schema change.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, correctly sized for a two-parameter tool. It is arguably over-terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 destructive schema mutation with no output schema, an agent still lacks the consequences of deletion (data loss, reversibility), any required preconditions, and confirmation of what happens to existing records. The annotations signal destructiveness but the description does not contextualize it.

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 100% with both required parameters documented ('Entity name', 'Field name'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that field_name is scoped to entity but adds no format, naming-convention, or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a field') and scopes it with 'from an entity', which implicitly separates it from entities_delete and data_delete. It does not, however, name or differentiate against the close siblings fields_add, fields_update, fields_get, and fields_list, so the agent must infer the routing from the noun alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent is not told when to remove a field versus updating it, nor whether prerequisites (empty field, admin role, schema not in use) apply before deletion.

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