delete_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that purge=False is reversible, purge=True is permanent and irreversible, and that purge=True also removes the contract's links to its equipment and supplier. It also gives the exact update_contract call for reversing a soft delete.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then uses a compact bullet structure to explain the two purge modes. Every sentence provides necessary operational information, with no filler or repetition.

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 deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly and safely. It covers the purpose, the parameter-dependent behavior, the irreversibility warning, the cascade side effect, and the reversal mechanism.

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. It thoroughly explains the non-obvious 'purge' parameter, including default value and both boolean effects, and contract_id is implied by the tool name plus the example update_contract(contract_id, ...). The contract_id parameter itself is not separately defined, but its meaning is unambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Supprime un contrat.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools for suppliers, contacts, tickets, tasks, and follow-ups. The added purge semantics further pin down what kind of deletion operation this is.

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?

It explicitly explains the default behavior (purge=False -> trash) and the irreversible mode (purge=True), and it names update_contract as the reversal path. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over update_contract for soft deletion or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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