delete_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (delete) which implies destruction, but does not disclose whether the operation is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data (contacts' linked tasks, organizations, or lists), or require any confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource clearly. In terms of brevity, it's perfectly economical.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should disclose whether the operation is irreversible, whether deletion cascades to related records (tasks, contacts in organizations/lists), and what the response looks like on success or failure. Given sibling tools like delete_organization and delete_list exist, clarifying scope of deletion would be especially valuable. The single-sentence description does not satisfy the completeness burden for a destructive tool.

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 'id' parameter is already documented by the schema ('The ID of the person to delete'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, hitting the baseline of 3. No value clarification is needed since there's only one clear parameter.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Delete a person/contact') that precisely states what the tool does. It aligns with the sibling naming and clearly differentiates from get/create/update_person operations. However, it doesn't add significant scope information beyond the name itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There are no hints about what situations warrant deletion, whether delete is irreversible, or any conditions that should be checked before invoking. This is a bare minimum that gives no context.

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