teamleader_delete_contact

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destruction, and the description goes further by adding 'This is irreversible,' which is a valuable behavioral detail. It does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletions or whether certain linked records block deletion, but for a simple delete operation it discloses the most critical behavioral trait.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action appears first, and the irreversibility warning is separated concisely. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and risk.

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 single-parameter, destructive operation with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, target, and irreversibility. It falls slightly short by omitting any mention of return behavior, prerequisites, or effects on linked records, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema.

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%, and the 'id' parameter is already described as 'The contact ID to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it appropriately relies on the schema rather than duplicating information.

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 specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('contact from Teamleader Focus'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling contact tools like teamleader_create_contact, teamleader_update_contact, and teamleader_get_contact via the delete action.

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 when to use the tool: when a contact needs to be removed from Teamleader Focus. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. The irreversibility warning suggests caution but does not fully articulate usage context beyond the basic action.

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