delete_contact_personDeletes an additional contact person by ID and returns the owning contact ID, so you can clean up CRM records and track the parent contact.
Delete Contact Person.
Deletes an additional contact person by ID and returns the owning contact ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contactPersonId | Yes | The unique identifier of the contact person to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the owning contact ID is returned — and the qualifier 'additional' hints at a distinguishable main contact person, but it says nothing about cascading effects or failure modes.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return value. The opening line 'Delete Contact Person.' merely restates the title and could be dropped, but the rest is free of padding.
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 simple one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and absent an output schema the description at least names the return value. However, for a destructive operation it omits what the agent most needs: whether deletion is refused for the main contact person and what state the parent contact is left in.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including format and pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by ID', adding no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Deletes an additional contact person by ID') and adds a return-value fact ('returns the owning contact ID'). The word 'additional' plus the delete verb separates it from get_contact_person, update_contact_person, and create_contact_person without opening their schemas.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say whether the main contact person can be deleted with this tool versus set_main_contact_person, nor does it note any prerequisite (e.g., that at least one other contact person must remain).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.