delete_merge_field

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

The description discloses irreversibility, permanent data loss, authentication method, rate limits, and dry-run compliance. It also notes that default fields will return an error. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, usage context, parameter details, return info, and an example. It is front-loaded and concise, with no superfluous information.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, error cases, return format, and provides an example. It is fully self-contained and answers likely questions an AI agent would have when invoking this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters in detail, including examples, source tools, and constraints (e.g., merge_id cannot be a default field). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('delete a custom merge field and all its stored data from an audience'), specifying the resource and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_merge_field and update_merge_field.

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 advises using only when the field is no longer needed, and warns that default fields cannot be deleted. It provides guidance on obtaining merge_id via list_merge_fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_merge_field if the goal is to change rather than delete.

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