cigchat_flow_delete_user_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible, explains the two-step confirm flow, and requires the 'Manage Flow' scope. This goes beyond the basic schema and gives the agent critical safety context.

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 composed of three concise sentences: purpose, destructive warning, and usage/scope. It front-loads the essential action, clearly flags danger, and provides necessary prerequisite information without any filler or repetition.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: purpose, destructive irreversibility, required action flow, and scope. It could mention what happens after deletion or provide a note about accepting both namespace id and name, but the schema fills some gaps. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already handles parameter details. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the `confirm` parameter's role in the two-step process (getting an impact statement first). This is not redundant with the schema and helps the agent understand the expected workflow.

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 function: 'Delete user field' with the HTTP DELETE endpoint. It specifies the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'cigchat_flow_delete_user_field_by_name', which also deletes user 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 provides explicit usage steps: call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement, then pass the confirmation token after approval. It also states the required scope. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternative deletion tools like 'delete_user_field_by_name' or 'subscriber_clear_user_field'.

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