wafeq_custom_fields_destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this by adding 'Permanently removes the record' to emphasize irreversibility, a red 🔴 DESTRUCTIVE warning banner, and the meaningful precondition about documents. No contradiction with annotations; the added context goes beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 short and front-loaded with a warning banner, but it is redundant: 'Delete custom field' and 'Endpoint for deleting an existing custom field' both restate what the banner already says. The unique content — the in-use precondition and permanence — earns its place, but roughly half the prose repeats the same idea.

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 low-complexity tool with strong schema coverage (100%) and rich annotations (destructive, idempotent, open-world), the description covers the core purpose, the key precondition, and the permanence of the operation. The main gap is that failure behavior when the field is in use is not described, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both id and idempotency_key already documented in detail (the idempotency key's header behavior and auto-generation are fully explained in the schema). The description adds only marginal parameter-relevant context by implying that only non-in-use custom field ids are valid targets.

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 states a specific verb ('deletes' / 'Delete custom field') and a specific resource ('Custom Fields' with the exact DELETE /custom-fields/{id}/ endpoint). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from its custom_fields siblings (list, create, retrieve, update, partial_update), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 provides a clear precondition — 'The custom field must not be in use on any documents' — which tells the agent when deletion is even valid. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with related tools such as wafeq_custom_fields_update for modifying an in-use field, leaving the when-to-use reasoning mostly implied.

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