delete_contract

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 adds important context about the precondition (test/draft contracts only), which is valuable beyond just stating the action. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or what happens to associated data.

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 with just two sentences that directly convey the action and key constraint. Every word earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential precondition but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'deletes' entails (e.g., permanent removal?), error responses, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion and absence of structured data, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 100%, with the parameter 'contract_id' fully documented in the schema as a 'GUID of the contract to be deleted.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a contract'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'withdraw_contract' by specifying deletion rather than withdrawal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_template' in terms of resource type beyond the name.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: only for test or draft contracts. This implicitly suggests alternatives like 'withdraw_contract' for non-deletable contracts. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it beyond the condition mentioned.

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