ghl_delete_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses permanence ('permanently delete') but omits other critical traits such as cascading effects on related data (notes, tasks), authentication requirements, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence ('Permanently delete a contact by ID.') with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavior.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple one-parameter delete tool. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or side effects, but the essential action is clear. Given the lack of annotations and the destructive nature, more context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already documents contactId with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats 'by ID' and adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, source, or constraints.

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 clearly states the action (delete), the resource (contact), and the method (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_get_contact, ghl_update_contact, and ghl_delete_contact_note by specifying a permanent contact deletion.

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 description implies usage (use when you need to permanently delete a contact) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. There is no guidance on using this versus other contact-related editing tools, though the purpose is clear.

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