hedera_delete_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'unsigned' implying the transaction is built but not submitted, but doesn't clarify authorization requirements, side effects (e.g., contract removal), or what happens if balance is zero. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single sentence that efficiently captures the core action and a key detail (balance transfer). It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is perhaps too concise given the lack of annotations and schema documentation; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only 33% parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, errors, or the lifecycle of the contract after building the transaction. A deletion tool in Hedera requires more context about the transaction building process, such as signing and submission expectations.

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 33% (only transferAccountId has a description). The description adds meaning by linking 'transferring any balance' to transferAccountId, but fails to explain contractId or payerAccountId. This partial compensation merits a 3, as it adds some value beyond the schema but not enough.

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 'Build (unsigned) a contract deletion, transferring any balance to an account,' which clearly indicates the verb ('Build') and resource ('contract deletion') and adds a key detail (balance transfer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hedera_delete_token or hedera_delete_topic by specifying 'contract.' However, the term 'unsigned' could be clearer about the tool's role (e.g., does not execute).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hedera_delete_token or how it relates to other contract tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or why one would choose this over other deletion tools.

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