Delete custom field

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

The description explicitly says 'Destructive: removes the field and its stored values across records,' which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the exact scope of destruction (stored values across records). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence that is direct and efficient. The action and key consequence are front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple delete operation with one required parameter, the description covers the main consequence (removal across records). It does not mention reversibility or error conditions, but the destructive annotation and idempotentHint cover some of this. The key outcome is clearly stated.

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 description adds no information about the parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% — customFieldId has no description, and the description does not clarify its purpose or format. locationId is described in the schema but the tool description adds nothing.

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 the action (delete), the resource (custom field definition), and the consequence (removes field and stored values). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ghl_update_custom_field or ghl_get_custom_field by specifying the destructive effect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'when you need to permanently remove a field' or mention that this is irreversible. There is no discussion of exclusions or prerequisites.

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