Delete custom field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond those: the native endpoint, the edit_products scope requirement, and the explicit per-call confirmation gate. It still doesn't say what deletion destroys (field values on existing products) or whether it's recoverable, keeping it below 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?

Three short sentences, action and resource front-loaded, followed by endpoint, scope, and the confirmation requirement. No filler text; every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, authorization scope, and a confirmation gate, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is largely complete, though it omits any statement of irreversibility or post-delete effect on existing product data.

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 all four parameters (name, account, confirm, product_id) are already documented in the schema with formats and constraints. The description only echoes product_id and name via the endpoint path, adding no new parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and reinforces it with the exact native endpoint DELETE /products/:product_id/custom_fields/:name, which distinguishes it from create_custom_field, update_custom_field, get_custom_field and list_custom_fields. It does not name siblings explicitly, so it stops 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?

Provides real usage constraints: the required OAuth scope (edit_products) and the requirement for explicit per-call confirmation. It never names alternatives or states when *not* to call it (e.g., use update_custom_field to modify instead), so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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