remove_field

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden. It explains the export/remove/import mechanism, warns about REDCap's rejection rules, and states the return behavior. This is solid, though it could mention irreversibility or referential integrity beyond branching logic.

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 and well-organized: purpose, mechanism, caution, argument, return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important detail (what the tool does) 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action) and the presence of an output schema in context signals, the description covers the essentials: action, mechanism, edge cases, and return value. It doesn't discuss auth or other errors, but those are not critical for a REDCap API wrapper with one field parameter.

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 schema only specifies field_name as a required string. The description adds semantic value by clarifying it is the 'Variable name of the field to remove,' which distinguishes it from a label. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is necessary and well done.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove a field from the project data dictionary'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_field, update_field, and move_field. The scope and intent are 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., deactivating a field via update_field). It does provide cautionary notes about record-ID and branching logic, but stops short of positioning the tool relative to others.

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