remove_dataset_field

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes refusal conditions, the force option, and the return value structure. However, it does not explicitly mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond deletion, which slightly lowers the score.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states the main action, second contrasts with a sibling, third explains refusal, fourth explains the force parameter, and fifth describes the flow and return. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains when the tool is used in the cookbook flow, the conditions for refusal, the return format, and integrates with sibling tools. No major gaps are present.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds some context by explaining the purpose of field_name and force, but it does not explicitly describe path and dataset_name beyond being required. The description provides moderate value but does not fully compensate for the low 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 clearly states the action (remove a data-bound field by name) and distinguishes it from siblings like remove_calculated_field. It specifies the target type (data-bound) and the conditions for refusal, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (data-bound fields) and when not (calculated fields, still-referenced fields). It names the alternative tool (remove_calculated_field) and explains the optional force parameter for forced deletion. The cookbook flow context further guides usage.

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