attributes_delete_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the destructive behavior: removing field data on all features and the need for user confirmation. It could mention irreversibility, but the current disclosure is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that cover the action, effect, and safety advice. No unnecessary words, and the critical information 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 simplicity of the tool, the description fully covers what it does, its destructive nature, and a safety guideline. An output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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 0%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names (layer_id, field_name). While names are self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify formats, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 states 'Delete a field from a vector layer' and specifies that it removes data on every feature. This precise verb-resource-action clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like attributes_add_field or attributes_rename_field.

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 advises confirming with the user before deleting an unbacked field, providing clear context on when to use (backed up) and when not to (not backed up). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for non-destructive operations.

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