Fields: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it says the column is dropped and the value it held is lost from every record, and it recommends user confirmation. This explains what actually gets destroyed, which the annotations only flag categorically.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then name-vs-id, then the sibling routing, then the safety note. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers action, input semantics, alternative routing, and irreversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 100%, so the schema handles the two params, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: field_name is the field's name, not its id. That disambiguation is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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+resource (delete a field from an entity) and further specifies scope by noting it takes the field's name rather than id. It distinguishes itself from the closely related entities_delete, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: to remove the whole entity and its records, use entities_delete. It also advises checking with the user before running. It does not cover the broader field-tool family (fields_update vs delete), but the key routing decision is stated.

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