Delete Unused Custom Fields

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

While annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the condition of 'unused'. It does not clarify error handling if fields are in use, nor expand on the idempotent nature.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lacks important context such as return values, error conditions (e.g., if a field is in use), and whether the operation is reversible. This makes it incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema: 'confirm' parameter is already described as 'Must be set to True to proceed.' No extra context is provided for other parameters.

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 clearly states the action (delete), resource (custom fields), and condition (unused by any test case in the current project). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_custom_field_value and delete_test_case.

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 implies when to use (removing unused custom fields) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives. No comparison with other deletion tools is provided.

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