asana_remove_field_from_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact API operation name and the inverse relationship, but does not disclose additional side effects such as whether tasks or field data are affected. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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?

One concise sentence states the core action, the API method, and the key relationship to a sibling tool. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Annotations cover idempotence and safety. The main missing piece is explicit parameter guidance, but for this simple detach operation the description is nearly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indicates that project_gid identifies the project and custom_field_gid identifies the field to detach, but it does not explain ID formats, how the two parameters relate, or how to obtain valid values. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial semantic value.

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 the specific verb 'Detach' with a clear resource: 'custom field from a project', and even names the underlying API method 'removeCustomFieldSetting'. It also distinguishes itself from the related sibling by noting it is 'Symmetric with asana_add_field_to_project', so an agent can tell this tool apart from add/remove variants.

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 names asana_add_field_to_project as the symmetric counterpart, which gives clear context for when this tool is the inverse of that operation. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative conditions, but the symmetry statement is enough guidance for the primary use case.

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