Custom Fields Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the deletion cascades to stored values, and it lists the exact OAuth scopes required per entity type, which the agent needs to know before attempting the call.

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 destructive effect is stated first, followed by compact endpoint, scope, and version lines. No filler sentences, though the HTTP path line is largely boilerplate for an agent.

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, annotation-covered operation with full schema coverage, the description covers effect, cascade, and permissions adequately. It still leaves open whether deletion is recoverable and how this differs from the custom_field_defs_delete sibling, which matters for correct selection.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping which read/write scope pair applies to each entity value (categories, products, customers, orders), giving semantics the enum list in the schema does not convey. It adds nothing for custom_field_id beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete a custom field definition') and adds the crucial cascade detail that its values go with it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tiendanube_custom_field_defs_delete, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 guidance on when to use this versus tiendanube_custom_field_defs_delete or custom_fields_set_values; the description is purely descriptive plus endpoint metadata. The agent must infer the distinction from tool names alone.

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