Delete custom field

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding blast-radius detail the annotations do not carry: effects on delivery, audience membership and published data, plus irreversible state.

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 with no filler; the destructive consequence is front-loaded before the confirm requirement. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 single-resource delete with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition supplies the essential pieces: what is destroyed, the side effects, and the confirmation gate. It could go further on recoverability or error behavior, but nothing required to invoke correctly 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including confirm and account. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema's own text; 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 and resource ('Delete custom field'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_custom_field, update_custom_field, list_custom_fields and bulk_create_custom_fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the destructive delete intent is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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?

'Requires confirm=true' is a concrete gating precondition that tells the agent this call cannot be made speculatively. However, it never says when deletion is the right choice versus other siblings (e.g. update_custom_field to rename, or bulk paths), so usage is implied rather than guided.

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