cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_fields_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (DELETE), the required scope, and the 20-field limit, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention whether fields are nullified or removed, reversibility, or what response to expect, leaving significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential details (endpoint, limit, scope). It is concise with no filler, though the information could be structured more clearly for readability.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide adequate context. Missing details include parameter semantics, effects on subscriber data, and differentiation from sibling tools. The limit and scope are helpful, but the overall description is incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'up to 20 user fields' and the endpoint 'by name', but does not explain that 'data' should be an array of objects with 'name' properties, nor what 'user_ns' represents. Only a hint at the limit is provided, which is insufficient for understanding the parameters.

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 ('Clear multiple subscriber user fields') and includes the endpoint and a limit of 20 fields. This distinguishes it from the singular variants like 'clear_user_field_by_name' and clearly indicates a multi-field operation.

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 use when clearing multiple subscriber user fields at once, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the singular clear_user_field_by_name. It also provides a prerequisite (Manage Flow scope), which is useful context, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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