delete_custom_field

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only communicates the destructive nature through 'Exclui' but does not state whether the deletion is permanent, irreversible, permission-dependent, or what happens to entity_type-scoped fields. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, directly stating the action and resource. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent's invocation. It lacks response expectations, side effects, or any clarification about entity_type or prerequisites, which is inadequate for a 3-parameter destructive tool.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level information; it does not mention id, client_slug, or entity_type. While the schema documents id and client_slug briefly and gives entity_type as an enum, the description fails to compensate for the undefined meaning of entity_type at 67% schema coverage. It provides zero additional semantic value 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?

The description 'Exclui um campo customizado existente' uses a specific verb (Exclui/deletes) and a clearly defined resource (custom field), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_custom_field_group. An agent can quickly understand that this tool removes an existing custom field rather than creating, updating, or reading one.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, such as when to prefer delete_custom_field_group or update_custom_field. The verb 'Exclui' implies the intended use case is deleting a custom field, but the description does not mention prerequisites like having the custom field id or client_slug.

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