Custom Field Capabilities Remove

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: the required OAuth scope (read_products/write_products) and the fact that this hits an unstable API version, both of which affect whether an agent should call it at all.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines that each carry information: purpose, endpoint, scope, version. The only waste is the mild redundancy between '(unstable API)' and 'API version: unstable'.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the auth requirement, the endpoint shape, and the stability caveat. What it omits is the effect of the removal itself — whether the capability payload is required and whether removal is reversible.

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%, so entity/namespace/slug are documented and the path template in the description reinforces their roles. The optional `capability` parameter is not mentioned anywhere beyond 'Capability to remove per the API reference', so how it is transmitted (body vs. query) and whether it may be omitted for a bulk removal remains unclear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a capability from a custom field definition') and gives the exact HTTP path, so the target object is unambiguous. It never names its siblings (capabilities_list / capabilities_add), so the differentiation is left to the naming convention rather than made explicit in the text.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use this when…' guidance, nor a pointer to capabilities_add for the inverse operation. Usage is only implied by the verb and by the required scope line, which at least tells the caller what permission is needed.

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