Delete Form Fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses preview-environment-only behavior, the 100-field limit, forbidden field types, and the requirement to deploy for live-app impact. This is strong for a destructive mutation tool, though it stops short of discussing irreversibility or exact error behavior.

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?

Four concise sentences, each delivering distinct value: action/scope, field-count limit, field-type restrictions, and the necessary companion operations. No filler or repetition; the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the fully described schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key operational caveats: preview-only, limits, restrictions, verification step, and deploy requirement. It may not enumerate all undeletable built-in field types, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: 'Maximum 100 fields can be deleted at once' and 'Cannot delete status, assignee, or category fields', which inform the fields parameter. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete form fields from a kintone app'. It also adds scoping details (preview environment only) and restrictions (cannot delete status, assignee, or category fields), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kintone-add-form-fields and kintone-update-form-fields.

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 actionable workflow guidance: use kintone-get-form-fields first to verify field codes, and use kintone-deploy-app to apply changes to the live app. It also mentions a specific use case ('recreating lookup fields when updates fail'). It does not explicitly contrast with add/update alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for tool selection.

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