Delete custom Project Info fields

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: only Custom-category fields are eligible, built-ins are rejected, and the return shape is [{key, deleted} | {error}], which tells the agent deletions are per-field and may partially fail rather than being atomic.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint, then the exclusion rule, then the return contract. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape; the error/partial-success case is implied by the union type. What remains thin is whether prior state matters for repeated calls, but for a single-parameter delete this is close to 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% and the single parameter is fully documented with key format ('autotext-<GUID>') and exact-name matching. The description's 'by database key or name' essentially restates the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (deletes), resource (Project Info fields), and a hard scope qualifier (CUSTOM / category Custom) that separates it from sibling get_project_info_fields and set_project_info_fields as well as from delete_attributes and delete_property_definitions. An agent can identify the target of the operation without opening the schema.

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 when the tool does NOT apply (built-in fields cannot be deleted) and gives the alternative action for that case (set their value to ""). This is real routing guidance, though it does not name a sibling tool for the built-in-field case or describe ordering/prerequisite requirements.

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