Delete Contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Although 'delete' implies a destructive action, the description does not state that the operation is irreversible, whether it is a hard or soft delete, or if any permissions are required. The only addition is a vague return format ('dictionary with success status'), which does not cover the safety implications of a mutating tool.

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 and well-structured. It leads with a one-sentence purpose, then uses a clear Args/Returns format. There is no wasted language, and every sentence contributes to understanding. The structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, the parameter, and the return type. However, for a deletion tool, it lacks crucial contextual information such as the consequences of deletion (e.g., also deletes associated data), whether the action can be undone, and any prerequisites. While the simplicity helps, the lack of behavioral context makes it only minimally complete.

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 does, by adding that contact_id is a UUID and that it is required, beyond the schema's type and required flags. This gives the agent a useful format hint. However, it does not explain how to obtain the UUID or the expected format (e.g., standard UUID vs custom string), which is a minor gap.

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 a specific contact (customer) from Tidio.' This uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (contact), distinguishing it from siblings like update_contact or create_contact. The scope is also clear (specific contact, identified by UUID).

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 implies usage for deleting a specific contact but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_contact or get_contact_details. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when deletion might be inappropriate. The instruction 'Delete a specific contact' gives basic context but lacks comparative guidance.

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