delete_contract_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('Delete a contract payment') without revealing side effects, irreversibility, error behavior, or permission requirements—essentially a tautology.

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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified, lacking any structured context. While it has no fluff, its brevity borders on incompleteness, earning a mid-range score.

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 delete operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not explain what a contract payment is, whether deletion is hard or soft, or any dependency on contract_id. The tool is simple, but the description fails to provide essential contextual details for an agent to invoke it safely.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (id and contract_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics.

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 payment'), using a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_contract_payment, get_contract_payment, and list_contract_payments by explicitly indicating the delete operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description does not mention whether contract_id is required for scoping, or any exclusions.

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