Change or remove a field

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds far more: delete removes 'the whole type and its records, on every computer that hosts the workspace', hide 'keeps everything it holds', and 'nothing is deleted until they choose.' This discloses blast radius, reversibility, and a confirmation flow that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is appropriately sized for a five-mode destructive tool and front-loads the purpose, but the body is a single semicolon-heavy run-on paragraph with no separation of modes, which hurts scannability. The content earns its place; the formatting does not.

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 5-parameter, 5-mode destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all modes, the destructive blast radius, and the confirmation flow an agent must follow. It does not describe the post-call state or error cases, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by explaining cross-parameter dependencies: `field` omitted means the whole type, `value` means the choice to add or the choice to rename under `label`, and that a rename leaves 'its name and what is stored' unchanged. It effectively documents the interplay the schema cannot express on its own.

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 names a specific verb+resource and enumerates every mode of the `change` enum (add_choice, label, hide, show, delete) with a plain-language gloss for each. It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_field/add_type by framing these as changes to a type the person already has. The opening 'Change a content type' is slightly loose (it changes fields on a type, not the type itself), which keeps it from 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?

It gives concrete routing guidance: 'When someone asks to remove something, offer hiding' and 'Delete is always put to the person as a question with hiding offered first.' This tells the agent which mode to prefer in the removal scenario. It does not name a sibling tool alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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