contacts_delete_contact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of permanence, side effects, or permission requirements. Given the annotations, the description could have added value (e.g., 'permanently deletes the contact and removes all associated data') but does not.

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 extremely concise—two words—with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded and direct, which is appropriate for a simple delete operation. However, it borders on under-specification, but given the simplicity, the brevity earns a 4.

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 delete tool with annotations covering destructive behavior and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any elaboration on what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, cascading effects) or the context of the contactId (e.g., must be a valid contact). An agent could call it correctly, but more context would improve completeness.

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 schema's parameter description ('Contact Id') fully covers the meaning of contactId, and with 100% schema coverage, the description has no obligation to add parameter details. It provides no extra semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete Contact' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (contact), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_contact_from_workflow', but the intent is sufficiently clear for an agent to recognize this deletes a contact record.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'delete_contact_from_workflow' or other delete operations. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested conditions for invocation, leaving the agent without routing context.

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