Delete Prime Contract

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

The description reinforces the destructive nature ('cannot be undone') already indicated by the annotations (destructiveHint: true). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects on associated data (e.g., line items, change orders) or permission requirements. The description adds some value but is largely redundant with annotations.

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 somewhat repetitive, stating 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' twice. While it front-loads the action, the redundancy makes it less concise than it could be. It is not severely bloated but could be streamlined.

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?

Given the tool has 2 simple parameters and annotations covering read-only and destructive hints, the description is adequate in stating the action and required parameters. However, it lacks information on return value (e.g., HTTP status codes), side effects, or permission requirements. With openWorldHint: true, the description could be more complete about constraints.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters (id and project_id). The description redundantly lists them as 'Required parameters' but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 deletes a specified Prime Contract and emphasizes permanence. It identifies the specific resource (Prime Contract) and the action (delete), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'delete_prime_change_order_line_item' or 'delete_prime_contract_project', but does not explicitly compare to them, making the purpose clear but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Prime Contracts' and lists required parameters, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete a line item or change order). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or context for using this tool over other delete operations.

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