Supprimer un(e) contact

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotent=false. The description adds valuable behavior: 'Action irréversible' explicitly states permanence, and it documents that a confirmation prompt may appear if the MCP client supports elicitation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear first sentence states the action, followed by a warning and a confirmation note. The Args block is somewhat redundant given the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and each sentence carries meaningful 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?

For a simple delete operation with one parameter, the description plus annotations are complete: purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation behavior are covered. The output schema exists, so return details are not required in the description. Minor additions like error handling or permissions are not necessary for this minimal tool.

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 fully covers the sole 'id' parameter with type, pattern, and description. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema ('Identifiant de l'entité à supprimer') without adding new semantic details beyond clarifying that the id targets the entity to be deleted.

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 uses the explicit verb 'Supprime' and identifies the resource as 'un(e) contact de BoondManager', making the action clear and specific. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as boond_contacts_search, get, create, and update, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is for deleting a contact but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as update for corrections or delete tools for other entity types. It adds context about irreversibility but lacks any 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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