Delete many contacts at once

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description meaningfully expands on these: no undo, permanent deletion, empty result on success, atomicity per request, never auto-retried, and the NOT_FOUND outcome on a re-send after a committed delete. This substantially clarifies runtime behavior beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope and permanence, the second gives the required precondition and finality, and the third explains failure recovery. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and destructive/idempotent behavior, the description covers all important operational aspects: batch limit, preconditions, return value, atomicity, retry guidance, and post-failure verification. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.

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%, with the resource_names property already fully documented including format, pattern, min/max, examples, and exact source. The description adds the contextual note to enumerate resource names first, but does not need to repeat param semantics because the schema is comprehensive.

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 a specific verb ('Permanently deletes'), the resource ('contacts'), the exact scale ('up to 500 contacts in one call'), and maps to the underlying API ('People API people:batchDeleteContacts'). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling delete_contact by the batch scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: list resource names first, use batch_get_contacts to confirm identities, and treat the call as final. It also prescribes exactly how to handle ambiguous failures—checking existing contacts instead of re-sending—which is strong usage guidance beyond a generic alternative.

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