edit_custom_fields_bulk

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

The description adds a strong warning that 'delete' permanently removes custom fields from the entire system, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying permanence and scope. It also clarifies the tool operates on definitions, not values. No contradiction with annotations; the extra warning adds meaningful behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then exclusions/warnings. The emoji and warning are useful and not filler. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place. Not as tight as the highest examples, but efficient.

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 destructive bulk tool with no output schema, the description covers the main safety aspects and the key sibling distinction. However, it omits any mention of the singular delete_custom_field alternative, does not clarify what the confirm parameter does beyond the schema, and the unsupported 'permissions' reference adds confusion. An agent would need to inspect the schema to fully understand operation and custom_fields.

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 only 33%, with custom_fields and operation lacking property descriptions. The description helps by indicating custom_fields are the definitions themselves, but it does not explicitly state they are IDs or explain the array's role. Operation's enum is self-documenting, but the confirm parameter is only explained in the schema. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 says 'Manage custom field definitions themselves (permissions, delete)' which names the resource and includes 'delete', but 'permissions' is not supported by the schema (operation enum only allows 'delete'). This is misleading. The distinction from edit_documents_bulk is clear, but the verb 'manage' is less specific than stating the actual bulk delete operation.

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?

Explicitly states this does NOT modify custom field values and directs the agent to edit_documents_bulk with method 'modify_custom_fields' as the alternative. This clear when-not guidance prevents a common confusion. However, it does not mention the sibling delete_custom_field for singular deletes, so it lacks a complete routing picture.

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