Delete a field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the material consequences an agent actually needs: deletion is permanent and irreversible, it wipes the value on every record, built-in fields are rejected by the platform, and the response shape is structuredContent {field_id, key, deleted}. This is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope before the confirmation requirement and the platform restriction. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is redundant 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?

For a destructive three-parameter tool this covers the essentials: what is destroyed, irreversibility, the required user confirmation, the platform-level restriction, and the return shape. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantic value by telling the agent where field_id must come from (heliyos_objects_get) rather than letting it guess. It does not add anything on schema_id or object_type beyond what the schema's enum and conditional note already provide.

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 ("Permanently deletes one field of an object by field_id") and immediately clarifies the blast radius: the field AND its value on every record. That scope statement distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling heliyos_fields_update without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (field_id comes from heliyos_objects_get) and a when-not rule (built-in required fields such as a company's name are refused by the platform). It also prescribes a confirmation protocol naming the field and object. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling such as heliyos_fields_update for non-destructive edits, so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.

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