Delete custom field

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds only the API endpoint, not consequences like cascade effects or irreversibility. There is no explanation of openWorldHint implications, so transparency is limited.

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 first two sentences are redundant ('Delete custom field' and 'Deletes a custom field'), violating the principle that every sentence should earn its place. The endpoint sentence adds value but does not compensate for the tautology.

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 operation, the description is minimal. It does not mention what happens to associated values, whether deletion is permanent, or any prerequisites. The openWorldHint and destructiveHint are present but not explained in 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?

The schema fully describes the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. No additional semantic value is provided 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?

Clearly states the operation (delete) and the target resource (custom field), reinforced by the HTTP DELETE endpoint. Distinguishes from sibling delete tools like deleteDevice and deleteTag by naming the resource.

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 name and endpoint imply the tool is for deleting custom fields, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. Siblings like deleteCustomFieldValue and updateCustomField exist, but the description does not help choose between them.

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