placetel_delete_contactDelete a Placetel contact by ID to remove it permanently. This destructive action cannot be undone, so use it only when a specific contact must be removed.
Delete a contact by id. Destructive and irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The contact id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it is 'Destructive and irreversible,' which is largely redundant with the existing `destructiveHint: true` annotation. It does not disclose any further behavioral constraints like idempotency effects, rate limits, or required permissions not already defined in the structured metadata.
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 highly concise and efficient. Every sentence is essential, clearly defining the operation and its high-risk nature without unnecessary fluff.
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 that the input is a single ID, the description adequately conveys the core logic and safety profile. It lacks detail on potential error states or specific success responses, but provides all critical information for a simple deletion operation.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully defines the 'id' parameter. The description merely reinforces the fact that deletion relies on an ID, providing no additional semantic depth beyond what is provided in the schema and annotations. Baseline score for high coverage applies.
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 tool name, title, and description clearly state the action (Delete) and the resource (contact). It explicitly mentions the method of operation ('by id'), distinguishing it from other potentially similar resource managers.
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?
While it clearly defines what the tool does, it offers no guidance on when to use it versus similar tools, such as `placetel_delete_user` or `placetel_delete_group`. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.