Contact Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the irreversibility profile is largely covered. The word 'permanently' reinforces that the deletion is unrecoverable but adds little beyond the annotation, and the description says nothing about cascade effects (e.g., whether associated conversations or messages are affected).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is appropriate, though it is arguably terse for a destructive tool where one more clause about consequences would earn 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 permanent, non-idempotent delete with no output schema, the description omits any warning about consequences, auth requirements, or side effects on dependent records. An agent has no way to know what else is affected by removing a contact.

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 100% and both parameters (contactId, organizationId) are documented in the schema with pointers to contact_list and organization_list. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a contact'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the many sibling *_delete tools (member_delete, conversation_delete, message_delete), though the tool name itself carries that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a contact versus alternatives such as contact_update or conversation_delete, and no prerequisites or cautions are stated. For an irreversible operation, the absence of any when-to-use context is a real gap.

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