Delete custom field

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint as true, but the description goes beyond that by specifying the cascading effect across all documents and the irreversible nature of the operation. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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, no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a concise safety warning. Every sentence earns 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description captures the core behavior, scope, irreversibility, and a precondition ('check document_count first'). It could slightly improve by clarifying where document_count is obtained, but it is otherwise complete enough for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has a single required 'id' integer parameter with no schema description, so coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly state that 'id' identifies the custom field to delete, but with only one parameter and the action phrase 'a custom field definition,' the parameter's role is reasonably inferable. Still, the description could have compensated more directly.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a custom field definition') and adds the critical scope: 'every value stored in it, across all documents.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_custom_field, update_custom_field, and get_custom_field, and matches the tool's name.

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 clear operational context by warning that the action cannot be undone and instructing the agent to confirm with the user and check document_count first. It does not explicitly name an alternative like update_custom_field for non-destructive changes, so it stops short of an exhaustive when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guide.

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