reach_deleteAContactFieldV1

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

The description discloses cascading deletion of all field values and options for choice types, and explicitly states contacts themselves are unaffected. With no annotations provided, this is essential behavioral context that goes beyond the tool name.

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?

Two brief sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise consequence statement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or clutter.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior: deletion, cascading effects, and the non-effect on contacts. It could mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but for a simple delete tool with clear parameter descriptions, it is fairly complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (profileUuid, fieldUuid). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the overall context of deleting a field helps interpret the fieldUuid parameter. 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 'Delete a custom contact field' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reach_createAContactFieldV1 and reach_updateAContactFieldV1. Adding 'custom' clearly separates it from contact deletion (reach_deleteAContactV1).

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (to delete a contact field), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The description gives context about consequences but no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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