Delete custom field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that account state is mutated, that a confirm gate must be satisfied, and that OAuth callers need the custom_fields:write scope. It does not address reversibility or what happens to values already stored on the field.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the two operational constraints. No filler and nothing that does not earn its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, the confirm gate, and the OAuth scope. It stops short of explaining irreversibility or the effect on existing field values, which would be the remaining thing an agent needs before deleting.

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%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, publication_id, and custom_field_id. The description only restates the confirm requirement, which the schema's own description ("Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action") already conveys, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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+resource ("Delete custom field") that maps unambiguously to the delete_custom_field operation and distinguishes it from create_custom_field/update_custom_field/patch_custom_field in the sibling list. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the other delete_* siblings (delete_segment, delete_webhook, delete_post), so it falls short of 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?

The description gives a clear precondition ("requires confirm=true for the user-requested action"), which is real usage guidance, but it never states when to prefer deletion over update_custom_field/patch_custom_field or when deletion should be avoided. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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