Delete Ticket Custom Field Value

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds valuable context by explaining the destructive scope is limited to the value assignment, not the field definition, and by noting the 204 No Content response. This enhances understanding without contradicting 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 three sentences, each earning its place: the endpoint and action, the scope clarification, and the parameter/response detail. It is front-loaded with the HTTP verb and resource, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple delete operation with only two well-described parameters and no output schema, this description fully covers the behavioral scope, parameter meanings, and success response. The presence of annotations covers safety expectations, and the description adds the critical distinction from definition deletion.

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%, with both 'id' and 'ticket_id' having descriptions. The main description repeats the 'id' explanation from the schema but adds no new parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Remove a custom field value from a ticket') and immediately disambiguates the resource by stating it does NOT delete the custom field definition. This clearly distinguishes it from other ticket-related deletion tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly clarifies when to use this tool (to remove a value assignment) and when not (not to delete the definition). The phrase 'does NOT delete the custom field definition' provides an explicit exclusion, and the parameter clarification gives useful context for correct invocation.

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