delete_contract_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a contract document' and fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, cascading, or has any side effects on related records. For a destructive operation, this is a critical gap with zero added transparency.

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 sentence with no filler words, making it concise and front-loaded. It could include more context (e.g., consequences) without losing conciseness, but it is efficiently stated and not padded.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must supply complete context. It merely states the action and omits return values, error behavior, side effects, and the permanence of deletion. For a destructive tool, this is an incomplete and under-specified description.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (id is Document ID, contract_id is Contract ID), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as the relationship between the two IDs or any constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a contract document'), which is a specific and distinct resource. However, it does not provide any scope or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_contract_document or replace_contract_document_file, though the name and resource are sufficiently clear.

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, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of scenarios where deletion is appropriate or inappropriate. It is a bare statement of action with no usage context.

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