Field Config Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that deletion is irreversible, whether stored field data survives, whether the config must be exported/uninstalled first, or what permissions are required. 'Delete' implies mutation but nothing beyond the verb is conveyed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of the destructive-action context an agent needs.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the definition is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, an undocumented identifier parameter, and no warning about irreversibility or data loss. For a delete operation in a config-management family, this is not sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required config_id parameter has no type hint, format, or example in either schema or description. An agent cannot tell whether config_id is a machine name (e.g. 'node.article.field_tags'), a numeric ID, or a UUID. The description adds no compensating meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a field configuration'), so the action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from field_config_get/create/update siblings by name alone. However, it offers no differentiation of scope or effect versus siblings like field_storage_delete or config_set, so it lands at clear-but-minimal rather than exceptional.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. field must have no data, config must be exported first), and no reference to alternative tools such as field_config_update or export_config. The agent must infer everything about appropriate usage from the tool name.

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