deleteGlobalCustomFields

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly pre-supplied. The description still adds real value by spelling out that the effect is irreversible and unrecoverable through the API, and by describing the dry_run preview mechanism — but it never says what the delete actually removes (the whole field definition, its values, existing data on work items?), which is the key unknown for a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope, then the alternative, then the consequence, then the tip — a sensible ordering with little waste. The closing sentence about previews being returned as text or structured content is generic executor boilerplate rather than tool-specific information, so it is the one sentence that does not fully earn its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a delete tool the essential context (scope, alternative, irreversibility, dry_run) is present, and destructiveHint covers risk signaling. The remaining gap is that `resourceType` is described only as "The Resource Type," so the agent gets no help identifying the target field from the description either.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description pushes above it by explaining the practical behavior of `dry_run` (validation, preview, redacted auth header, no request sent). However it adds nothing about how `resourceType`/`targetType` identify which global field is deleted, which is the parameter interpretation that actually matters here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes the specified Custom Field configuration") plus the scope ("Global context") in the first two sentences. It explicitly names the sibling `deleteProjectCustomFields` as the narrower alternative, so an agent can discriminate between the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule: "To act on a single project, use `deleteProjectCustomFields` instead," along with the selection condition (global vs. single-project scope). It also prescribes a safe practice (dry_run first), covering both routing and procedure.

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