rm_delete_custom_field

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by labeling the operation as Destructive. It adds value beyond the annotations by explicitly requiring confirm=True before deletion occurs. It also clarifies that the operation targets the field definition itself, not custom field values.

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 compact sentence with the most important safety information front-loaded in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 delete with a confirm gate and an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation requirement. It could also mention consequences of deleting a custom field that is already in use or whether the operation is reversible, but the core information needed to call the tool safely is present.

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. It does clarify the confirm parameter's role by requiring confirm=True. The custom_field_id parameter is only implied by the phrase 'custom field definition', but its meaning is reasonably inferable from the schema title and the delete context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a custom field definition'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling delete tools because it names the exact target object. The destructive warning adds scoping clarity without ambiguity.

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 provides a clear invocation prerequisite: 'requires confirm=True'. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like rm_update_custom_field or how to discover the custom_field_id via list/get tools. Usage context is implied by the delete verb rather than explicitly stated.

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