Api contracts destroy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description frames the endpoint as a view/edit endpoint and never mentions deletion, irreversibility, object removal, or referential-link side effects. This directly conflicts with the declared destructive nature, leaving the agent unable to understand the consequence of calling it.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is a generic Django REST Framework boilerplate string that spends its only words on the wrong operation. Brevity without content does not earn credit here.

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?

A destructive, irreversible delete with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations-level detail reproduced or extended leaves an agent with nothing it needs: not the effect, not the permissions, not the response, not the confirmation semantics.

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 single required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about which contract identifier is expected or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter is at least obviously the target record.

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 identifies the resource (contracts) but states the wrong operation: 'allows contracts to be viewed or edited' omits the deletion behavior that the tool name ('destroy') and annotations (destructiveHint=true) both indicate. An agent reading only the description would not know this tool removes a contract, so the stated purpose is actively misleading.

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 use this versus the many sibling tools (contracts_retrieve, contracts_update, contracts_partial_update, contracts_list, contracts_batch_action_create). No preconditions, no warnings, no exclusions. The phrase 'viewed or edited' even points an agent toward the wrong siblings.

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