cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_field_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a permission requirement ('Manage Flow' scope) and the HTTP DELETE method, signaling a destructive operation. Yet it omits details about whether the field itself is removed or just its value, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 compact and front-loaded, combining the action, endpoint, and auth scope in two short sentences. Every clause adds information with no filler.

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?

Despite being a simple 2-parameter mutation, the tool lacks an output schema and annotation support, so the description should explain the parameters and behavior more fully. The unexplained 'user_ns' and lack of success/error return information make it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 0% and the description adds little parameter semantics. 'field_name' is lightly implied by the phrase 'by field name,' but 'user_ns' is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing as to what namespace or subscriber identifier is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('subscriber user field value'), and specifies 'by field name' to disambiguate from similar clear/set field operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_field or clear_user_fields_by_name, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as clear_user_field, clear_user_fields, or clear_user_fields_by_name. The only contextual note is the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which addresses auth, not usage selection.

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