fields_delete_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable, non-obvious side effect — stored field values remain in post/term/user meta and options after the definition is deleted — but omits permissions required, reversibility, and what happens to now-orphaned 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?

Two short sentences, the destructive action front-loaded and the persistence caveat immediately after. No 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key data-persistence consequence but leaves auth/permission requirements and reversibility unstated, so it is only partially complete.

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 clear descriptions for key, kind (with enum), and site, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only indirect context about where values live, without extra semantics for any parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a database definition'), and the schema's enum clarifies the four kinds of definitions involved. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fields_update_definition or fields_sync_definition, but the field-family naming and the 'delete' verb make the intent unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., fields_update_definition or fields_sync_definition when you only want to change or refresh a definition rather than remove it). The agent must infer context entirely.

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