Delete custom field

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the safety burden and does so richly: workspace-wide reach, that it removes the field and its entered values from every project, that it 'cannot be undone', and that it asks the user for confirmation first. It even discloses cost/latency, well beyond what annotations provide.

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-loaded with the core action, then scope/irreversibility, then the alternative, then confirmation and cost. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and the sibling route to a narrower operation. Nothing material is missing.

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% with a single required `id` parameter, and the description only adds 'by ID'. The schema already documents the field, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete a custom field by ID') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `qase_custom_field_upsert` by name. An agent can tell this apart from the upsert tool 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?

Explicitly describes the condition that selects an alternative: 'To remove it from one project only, edit `projects_codes` with qase_custom_field_upsert.' This gives both when-to-use and a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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