Permanently delete a custom field from the entire system, removing it from all documents. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a custom field from the entire system. This will remove the field from ALL documents that use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning reinforces rather than adds. However, the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the operation is permanent and cascades by removing the field from ALL documents that use it. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The destructive warning and core action are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the essential cascade consequence. Every word 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 low-complexity tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the action, permanence, scope, and the key consequence for documents. Minor gaps: no error behavior for nonexistent fields, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 exactly 50%: the confirm parameter is already described in the schema ('Must be true to confirm this destructive operation'), and the id parameter's meaning is inferable from the tool name and description ('delete a custom field'). The description adds no explicit parameter detail but doesn't need much given the low complexity.
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 ('delete'), a specific resource ('custom field'), and the scope ('from the entire system'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_custom_field, edit_custom_fields_bulk, and other delete_* tools targeting different resources.
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 conveys clear context: this is for permanent, system-wide removal, so an agent understands when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the permanent/global framing implies it should only be used when a field must be removed everywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.