delete_custom_field_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: irreversible destructive operation, admin-only permission requirement, the side effect that historical selections retain the now-inactive option, and a 50-option threshold that switches to asynchronous bulk processing.

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?

Front-loads the action and its destructive/admin nature before the ID-resolution instructions. Dense and largely waste-free, though the telegraphic arrow notation is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the async-bulk edge case (with get_bulk_request_status available as a sibling). An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds lookup provenance by naming the exact tools that produce custom_field_id and option_ids. It adds no array-size or ID-format detail beyond that.

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 dropdown options from a custom field) and immediately marks it destructive and admin-only. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_custom_field_options, delete_custom_field, and list_custom_field_options.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisite routing: use list_custom_fields to resolve custom_field_id and list_custom_field_options to resolve option_ids, both by name. It does not explicitly contrast when to delete vs. deactivate/update an option, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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