Delete Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known; however, the description itself adds zero behavioral context beyond that, such as whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to documents using the field, or whether it can be undone. With no added disclosure, the description falls below the bar set by the HIGH calibration example (which at least added scoping context).

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 maximally efficient: a single short sentence with no wasted words. For a one-parameter delete operation, this brevity is acceptable, though it borders on under-specification rather than earning its place with added value.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, but the description still omits the meaning of field_id and the consequences of a destructive delete. For an irreversible operation on a metadata entity, agents would need at least a hint about affected documents or how to look up the field.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining field_id, but it never mentions the parameter. 'field_id' is a reasonably self-explanatory integer identifier, but the description does nothing to clarify how to find or supply it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Delete a custom field.' names a specific verb and resource, and the resource type 'custom field' is enough to distinguish it from sibling delete tools like delete_document, delete_tag, and delete_correspondent. It is clear but adds no detail beyond the name/title, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of how to obtain a field_id (e.g., via list_custom_fields or get_custom_field), and no exclusions. The single-sentence description leaves all usage context to the agent's inference.

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