Supprimer un(e) contact

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. The description adds the warning '⚠️ Action irréversible' (irreversible action) with a checkmark, confirming the destructive nature. However, it does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., cascade deletion, recoverability) or the response behavior. Since annotations cover the core behavior, the description provides marginal added value.

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 brief, with the main action stated in one sentence, followed by a warning and an Args list. The icon highlights the irreversible nature. Though the Args section could be better formatted (e.g., as a list), the overall structure is efficient with no redundant information.

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 simple delete operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, that it is destructive, and the parameter. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but the lack of output schema reduces the need. The annotation provides additional safety cues.

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 input schema already describes the parameter fully: 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager' (unique identifier of the BoondManager entity). The description's Args section repeats this as 'Identifiant de l'entité à supprimer' (identifier of the entity to delete), offering no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 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 explicitly states 'Supprime un(e) contact de BoondManager' (Deletes a contact from BoondManager), clearly specifying the action and resource. The title 'Supprimer un(e) contact' reinforces this. Among siblings, multiple delete tools exist (e.g., boond_absences_delete, boond_expenses_delete), but the description distinguishes the target (contact) unambiguously.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existence of the contact) or scenarios where deletion is appropriate (e.g., instead of updating to inactive status). The tool name and simple verb imply deletion, but no explicit usage context is given.

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