cigchat_flow_delete_bot_field_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive and irreversible nature, the two-step confirmation workflow, and the required scope. This is critical behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 destructive warning, followed by the step-by-step confirmation guidance and scope requirement. 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 delete-by-name tool, the description covers the essential workflow, safety warning, and authorization requirement. No output schema is needed for a delete operation, and the sibling list provides related tools for listing/checking bot fields.

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 clarifies that `name` refers to the bot field name, compensating for the schema's missing description on that parameter. It also reinforces the `confirm` workflow described in the schema, though the schema already covered `confirm` well.

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 phrase 'Delete bot field by name' clearly identifies the action (delete), resource (bot field), and identifier (by name). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_delete_bot_field (likely by ID) and other *_by_name delete tools for different resources.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement, then pass the token after human approval. It also states the required 'Manage Flow' scope, but does not explicitly compare to alternative delete-by-ID or list tools.

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