Delete Profile Field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the invocation-blocking requirement that confirm=true must be set, which is a behavior beyond the annotation set; 'Changes community state' is largely redundant with destructiveHint=true, keeping this from a 5.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the destructive nature and the confirm requirement front-loaded. Minor redundancy: the first sentence merely echoes the tool title.

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, non-idempotent deletion with no output schema, the description leaves key facts unstated: whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable via archive_profile_field, and what happens to data attached to the field. It is adequate but has a notable gap around reversibility.

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 account, confirm, and profile_field_id are already documented with meaning and constraints. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Profile Field'), so an agent immediately knows it removes a profile field. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling archive_profile_field / unarchive_profile_field tools, which is the one distinction that actually matters here (permanent delete vs. reversible archive).

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 ties confirm=true to 'the user-requested action,' which impliedly tells the agent when the tool is legitimate to call (only on explicit user request). It gives no guidance on when to prefer deletion over archiving, nor any prerequisites beyond the confirm gate.

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