field_storage_deleteRemoves a Drupal field storage configuration to delete a field's storage definition. Use it when a field is no longer needed and must be removed from the site.
Delete a field storage configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it says nothing about irreversibility, data loss in attached field data, required permissions, or side effects on dependent bundles. It essentially restates the name without adding behavioral context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive mutation with no annotations and a completely undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call it safely and correctly.
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?
There is one parameter (config_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about what the identifier is, its expected format (machine name vs UUID), or where to obtain it. With low coverage and no compensating text, this is a genuine gap.
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 a field storage configuration.' Clear at a glance. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like field_config_delete or field_storage_update beyond the verb, so an agent must rely on the name to route correctly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. It doesn't tell the agent whether field instances must be removed first, whether this cascades to field_config entities, or when to prefer field_config_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.