Remove Contact

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

The description claims 'permanently deleting' but the input schema for the 'resolution' parameter states that 'confirm' deletes are recoverable for 30 days, creating a contradiction. No annotations exist to clarify. The description also omits authorization requirements or side effects beyond interaction preservation.

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 concise with two main sentences, front-loading the purpose. It efficiently conveys key behavioral details, though the structure could be clearer about the two-step flow.

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 covers the main action, two-step flow, and interaction preservation, but lacks details on the recoverability period for deletion, the return value after resolution, and potential impacts on linked data. For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the multi-call pattern (first call returns conflict, then pass mode) and clarifying that archive preserves history, which guides parameter usage beyond the enum descriptions in the schema.

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 tool removes a contact via archiving (recoverable) or deletion, with specific details on the two-step conflict flow and preservation of interaction history on archive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_account or update_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?

The description explains the two-step process (first call returns conflict, then pass mode) and notes that interaction history is preserved on archive, implying when to use archive vs delete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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