delete_custom_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on the most important trait: it discloses that deletion is permanent and cascading, removing the field from ALL documents that use it. It omits any auth/permission requirements and the response shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the destructive warning and permanence front-loaded ahead of the cascading impact. Ideal sizing for a simple delete tool.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (permanent, system-wide removal). Minor gaps remain around permissions and the confirmation behavior, which the schema only partially covers.

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 only 50% (the 'id' parameter is undocumented). The description adds nothing about either parameter, not even mentioning the required 'confirm' gate or what 'id' refers to, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a custom field') and scopes it precisely ('from the entire system'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling delete_* tools for tags, correspondents, document types, etc. An agent can select it unambiguously.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says when to delete versus update or bulk_edit_custom_fields, nor mentions prerequisites beyond the schema's confirm flag. The destructive warning signals caution but not tool selection criteria.

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