Delete a contact field

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

The description adds important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses that stored field values are deleted, choice-type options are deleted, and contacts themselves are unaffected. This is valuable because destructiveHint only signals danger without specifying side effects. It does not over-explain and stays consistent with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action appears in the first sentence, followed by two crucial behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the target resource, the cascading deletion behavior, and the explicit non-effect on contacts. No critical operational detail 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific detail about fieldUuid or profileUuid, but their names and the tool context make their roles reasonably clear. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a custom contact field.' It clearly distinguishes this from reach_updateAContactFieldV1, reach_createAContactFieldV1, and reach_deleteAContactV1 by identifying the exact object being deleted. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the goal is to remove an entire custom contact field. The cascade explanation that field values and choice-type options are also deleted helps prevent misuse, such as expecting to delete only a single value. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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