delete_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the default is a reversible trash operation with a concrete restore path, and that purge=True is definitive and IRRÉVERSIBLE. It omits permission requirements and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight bullet points, front-loaded with the basic action and then the flag trade-off; every clause carries decision-relevant information with no padding.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial reversibility semantics an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around permissions, failure cases, and whether dependent records are affected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it fully explains the non-obvious purge parameter, including its default and the semantic difference between the two modes. contact_id is left implicit but is self-evident from the resource name.

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?

States a specific verb (supprime) and resource (un contact) unambiguously. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling deletion tools (delete_ticket, delete_supplier, delete_contract) or with update_contact's soft-delete flag, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 purge flag guidance effectively tells the agent when to use each mode: default for recoverable removal, purge=True only when permanent deletion is intended. It also names the recovery alternative update_contact(contact_id, {"is_deleted": 0}), though it does not state exclusions or warn about when NOT to purge.

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