POST /fields/{id}/disassociate

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description merely restates that this is a removal. It adds no context on irreversibility, permission requirements, or the SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES confirmation gate that the schema references.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the trailing 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation fieldsiddisassociate' is pure filler that adds nothing for an agent.

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 three-parameter mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description omits any behavioral detail on confirmation, side effects, or failure modes, leaving the schema to carry the load.

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 67% and the description only hints that the path id is a custom field and the body references a fieldset. It adds marginal meaning over the schema but does not compensate for the unlabeled fieldset_id parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (disassociate) and resource (custom field from fieldset), which clearly separates it from the sibling snipeit_gen_fieldsidassociate. The awkward past tense 'Removed' is a minor blemish but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus snipeit_gen_fieldsidassociate or the generic update endpoints. The agent must infer the direction (removal vs addition) solely from the operation name.

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