delete_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature (DELETE verb) and the subtle 'picks the pool' domain behavior, but does not disclose failure modes, idempotency, reversibility, or cascading side effects on associated contact data.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the operation and endpoint come first, then a single conditional usage note. Every element earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation, addressing modes, and the domain ambiguity handling. Minor gaps remain: no statement of error behavior for unmatched ids/emails or consequences of the destructive action, which matter more in the absence of annotations.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the domain-omission rule and adding the 'picks the pool' pool-selection nuance. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a contact'), and both addressing modes (id or email), with the HTTP endpoint clarifying the exact operation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_received_email and delete_contact_property, which target different resources.

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?

Provides explicit conditional guidance: pass `domain` when addressing by email, omit it for a contact id. This gives clear dispatch context for the two addressing modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though sibling differentiation is semantically obvious for a delete-contact operation.

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