delete_contact

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by specifying what is destroyed (segment memberships), what is preserved (emails in the log), the irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and a second, deeper destruction mode behind erase=true. That is exactly the added behavioral context the annotation cannot carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its side effects, then the optional destructive escalation. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the cascade, the data-retention outcome, irreversibility, and the high-impact optional flag. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and with which arguments.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description raises it by framing erase=true in compliance terms (GDPR/LGPD), which tells the agent why and when that flag matters rather than just what it does. The id parameter gets no extra treatment, which is acceptable since the schema documents it fully.

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') and immediately scopes the operation by naming the exact cascade ('its segment memberships') and the exact non-effect ('its emails stay in the log'). This is unambiguous against siblings like update_contact and create_contact.

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?

Gives a clear conditional for the optional parameter — pass erase=true when GDPR/LGPD erasure of the address is required — which is real usage guidance, not just a restatement. It does not name when to prefer update_contact or a suppression-list alternative, so it falls short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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