remove_custom_field_application

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context about exactly what is destroyed: the application of a custom field to a specific object, or its global application. This goes beyond the annotation alone and clarifies the two destructive scopes.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the key parameter nuance without wasted words. Every part 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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description plus annotations cover the essential context: what is removed, the two scopes, and how to indicate global removal. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, even though it does not describe possible side effects or return values.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the important semantic that ObjectId 0 means the global application, which is not derivable from the schema alone. This extra detail justifies a score above the high-coverage baseline.

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 ('Remove') with a clear resource ('custom field application') and distinguishes two targeted behaviors: removal from a specific object or from global application. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like apply_custom_field or list_custom_field_applications.

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 guidance for how to target removal (specific object vs. global using ObjectId 0). However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving some usage context implicit.

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