delete_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the deletion is permanent and irreversible ('This cannot be undone') and mentions the required scope, which is valuable context for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It leads with the primary action, followed by the two most critical caveats (irreversibility and scope requirement).

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the essential context: permanence, irreversibility, and permission scope. It omits return value details, but no output schema exists and such details are often standardized for delete operations.

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%, so the input schema already provides full meaning for contactId and expectState. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema offers, matching the baseline of 3.

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 'Permanently delete a contact from the address book' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_email or update_contact. The addition of 'permanently' and 'cannot be undone' reinforces the destructive nature.

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 phrase 'Requires read-write contacts scope' provides a clear precondition for use. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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