Delete a contact

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds the important behaviors of permanent removal, deprecation, default-profile fallback, and inability to delete contacts from other profiles. No contradiction with the 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 three concise sentences with the core action first, followed by the permanent-deletion consequence and then the deprecation/alternative. Every sentence contributes necessary information without filler.

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 one-parameter destructive endpoint with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is complete: it explains the effect, irreversibility, scoping limitation, and replacement route. No return-format detail is necessary for correct selection or invocation.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'uuid' as the UUID of the contact to delete, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: deleting a contact by UUID, and adds the key consequence that it permanently removes the contact from the email marketing system. It also distinguishes itself from the profile-scoped alternative by explaining the default-profile fallback and deprecation.

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?

It explicitly warns that the endpoint is deprecated, cannot target a profile, and always falls back to the default profile. It then tells the agent to use the replacement endpoint instead, which is clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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