crm_delete_contactSoft-delete a CRM contact: it moves to the recycle bin for 30 days and can be brought back with crm_restore_contact. Admin-only. Not permanent, so no confirmation phrase is required - but still tell the user what you removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that deletion is soft, retains the contact in the recycle bin for 30 days, is reversible via crm_restore_contact, requires admin privileges, and includes an explicit note about not asking for a confirmation phrase. This is rich behavioral context that substantially helps the agent.
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?
Three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the action and reversibility, the admin requirement, and the confirmation/communication guideline. The key verb and resource are front-loaded with no redundant or filler content.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete. It covers what happens to the contact, how long, whether it can be undone, who is allowed to do it, and what to tell the user. An agent has everything needed to decide and execute 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?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the single parameter contact_id is self-explanatory in context: the description's subject is 'a CRM contact', making it clear the parameter identifies which contact to delete. More detail about obtaining the id would help, but the semantics are not ambiguous.
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 'soft-delete' and the resource 'CRM contact', distinguishing it from a permanent delete and from sibling tools like crm_delete_deal and crm_delete_lead. It also explains the recycle-bin behavior, making the tool's purpose 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?
The description gives clear context: it is for soft-deleting CRM contacts, is admin-only, and explicitly instructs that no confirmation phrase is required because the operation is reversible. It names the restore path (crm_restore_contact), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling deletion tools.
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.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.