firestore-delete-field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (implied but not explicit), what happens if fields don't exist (error or no-op), authentication requirements, rate limits, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a straightforward tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (documentPath and fields) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying field deletion, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with extra context like path format examples.

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') and target ('specific fields from a document'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like firestore-delete-document (which deletes entire documents). However, it doesn't specify the resource type (Firestore) or differentiate from other field-modification tools like firestore-increment-field, making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose field deletion over document deletion (firestore-delete-document) or field updates (firestore-update-document), nor does it specify prerequisites like document existence or permissions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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