cigchat_flow_delete_bot_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is destructive and irreversible, explains the two-step confirmation workflow, and states the required OAuth scope. This is exemplary for a deletion tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value (destructiveness, confirmation step, scope). No wasted words.

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 simple but destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to use it safely, required permissions, and the confirmation flow. The agent can confidently invoke it correctly.

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%: both parameters (`var_ns` and `confirm`) are thoroughly described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete bot field') and includes the endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_delete_bot_field_by_name, which likely serves a related but distinct purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear, critical usage guideline: call once without `confirm` to obtain an impact statement before proceeding. It also notes the required 'Manage Flow' scope. Lacking explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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