Custom Field Defs Delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation targets an unstable API version (a real risk for a destructive call), requires a specific OAuth scope, and maps to DELETE /{entity}/custom-fields/{namespace}/{slug}. It does not state whether deletion cascades to stored values or what happens when the definition is not found.

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 front-loaded and four short lines long, with no filler. It loses a point because "(unstable API)" in the first line is repeated verbatim as "API version: unstable" in the last line, which is redundant within such a compact definition.

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?

This is a three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, and the definition covers the endpoint, the required scope, and the instability warning, while the annotations carry the destructive/idempotent flags. It falls short of complete because it does not say whether the deletion is permanent, whether attached field values are removed, or what a successful response returns.

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%, and the entity enum is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already carries the burden of explaining parameters. The path template /{entity}/custom-fields/{namespace}/{slug} tells the agent how the three parameters are bound into the request, but it adds no format, validation, or lookup details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Delete a custom field definition." This is distinguishable from the sibling tools `tiendanube_custom_fields_delete`, which deletes field values, and `tiendanube_custom_field_defs_create/get/list`, which manage definitions. An agent can select the correct sibling without opening any schema.

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 states the required scope (read_products/write_products) and contains a useful warning that the API is unstable, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over `tiendanube_custom_fields_delete`, nor does it give any preconditions such as whether the definition must be unused or empty before deletion. Usage is therefore implied by the name rather than guided.

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