delete_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does disclose a critical constraint: signed contracts cannot be deleted, which informs the agent of a likely error condition. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or has cascading effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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 concise, front-loads the core action, and includes a critical constraint in a single additional sentence. There is no redundant wording, and the structure is optimal 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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and a key constraint. However, it omits details such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the contract is signed (error vs. no-op), and any permission requirements. Given the absence of annotations, these omissions leave the tool slightly under-specified for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 schema description for the sole parameter 'id' is clear ('Contract ID or token'), and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, matching the baseline expectation of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a contract') and is distinct from all siblings (create, update, list, get, list_attachment_types). It does not restate the name and clearly identifies the operation. The added note about signed contracts also enriches purpose by clarifying scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_contract should be used for modifications or that get_contract/list_contracts are for retrieval. The usage context is implied by the name and sibling list but not stated, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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