deleteDealCustomField

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'Delete', implying irreversible mutation, but provides no details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior. Minimal transparency for a deletion operation.

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 sentence, very concise. It could potentially include a bit more context (e.g., irreversibility) without becoming verbose, but it is well-structured and 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?

Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the agent lacks information about the response (e.g., success indicator). It is complete enough for a simple delete but could improve.

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% – the parameter 'id' is described as 'Field ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Delete a deal custom field' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific to deal custom fields, distinguishing it from general custom field deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'deleteDeal' or 'deleteCustomField', so it loses a point for lack of distinction.

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 is provided on when or when not to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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