delete_custom_field

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context, such as permanence or cascade effects, which would be helpful. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 at 4 words, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. While no word is wasted, the minimalism leaves out essential information that should be included, earning a middle score.

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 lack of parameter documentation and absence of usage context, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description fails to provide enough context for safe usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not clarify the purpose or source of the required parameter 'field_id'. An agent would not know it represents the custom field's ID or how to obtain it, making this a critical 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' clearly identifies the verb (delete) and resource (custom field), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_correspondent or delete_document, which target other entities.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, such as deactivating a custom field instead of deleting it, or any prerequisites like ensuring the field is not in use.

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