delete_a_field_1

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: irreversible process, immediate unavailability of associated data, potential delay, and that the field ID is not recycled. It also describes the expected HTTP response (202 Accepted). This goes well beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with a warning emoji and 'DESTRUCTIVE' label, followed by the endpoint and concise behavioral details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 destructive and irreversible nature of the operation, the description covers the key aspects: irreversibility, immediate data unavailability, potential delay, and non-recycling of field IDs. It also references the `?showFields=all` parameter for programmatic use. No output schema exists, but the description explains the response status (202 Accepted), making it complete for the tool's context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters clearly. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the `showFields` parameter (to show fields hidden after deletion) and its default behavior. This provides context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as deleting a field from a schema under Custom Objects, with a specific verb ('Delete a field') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying the context (field under schema) and including the HTTP endpoint.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before calling, which is a clear usage guideline. It also notes the irreversible nature and encourages use of the `?showFields=all` parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus other delete tools (e.g., delete_a_fieldvalue_1) or provide exclusions.

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