parse_delete_field

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: the deletion is permanent ('permanentemente'), data in all objects is lost ('Los datos de ese campo en todos los objetos se perderán'), and master key is required. This thoroughly warns about the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then state consequences and requirements. Every sentence earns its place without any fluff or redundancy.

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 destructive nature, the description adequately covers the essential concerns: permanent deletion, data loss, and auth. Although parameter details are left to the schema and no return value is described, the behavioral warnings are sufficient for a delete operation.

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?

The description adds no information about the parameters (className and fieldName) and does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. It mentions neither parameter, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a low-coverage case.

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 tool's purpose: 'Elimina permanentemente un campo de una clase' (permanently deletes a field from a class). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like parse_delete_class and parse_delete_object by explicitly focusing on fields.

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 implies usage by naming the specific action (delete field) and notes a prerequisite ('Requiere master key'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough, yet there is no direct guidance on alternatives.

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