armavita-quo-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive nature of the operation ('THIS IS DESTRUCTIVE'), which is crucial for a deletion tool. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens to associated data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 with only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Delete a contact by ID') and following with a critical warning. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the destructive nature but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or system impacts, which are important for such a high-risk tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'Contact ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a contact by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_contact', 'get_contact', and 'update_contact'. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context with the warning 'THIS IS DESTRUCTIVE — use with caution', which implicitly guides usage by highlighting risk. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_contact' or list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the contact ID.

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