Delete a contact after explicit confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true only after the user explicitly confirms this exact operation | |
| contactId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | A unique identifier generated once for this intended write. Reuse exactly when retrying. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is not in the annotations. Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the destructive nature is covered. However, it does not mention permanence, side effects, or any additional behavioral details beyond the confirmation.
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 with no wasted words. The action and the critical condition are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
The description covers the core action and confirmation, but lacks mention of irreversibility, return values, or error behavior. The output schema and annotations partially compensate, but for a destructive operation, stating that deletion is permanent would be valuable.
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 does not explain any parameters. The schema already provides descriptions for confirmed and idempotencyKey, and contactId is a common identifier with no description. With 67% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'contact', and adds the condition 'after explicit confirmation' which distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_case. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contact or other delete operations. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.