delete_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: suppression and topic preferences are intentionally preserved, with a rationale that the opt-out must outlive the contact record to prevent re-adding on import. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or permission requirements, but the key side effects are transparent.

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 tightly written sentences: the action, the important side-effect nuance, and the alternative tool. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, side effects, and alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no direct explanation of contact_id. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory from its name and the tool context, so minimal compensation is needed. The lack of any parameter detail keeps this at a baseline rather than higher.

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 ('Remove'), resource ('person from the workspace'), and scope ('entirely, along with every audience membership'). It explicitly contrasts with remove_from_audience, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the related sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

Contains an explicit when-to-use alternative: 'To take someone off a single audience use remove_from_audience instead.' This establishes the clear condition for choosing delete_contact (full removal) versus the sibling, and also provides context about retained preferences.

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