reach_deleteAContactV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the permanent removal and the profile fallback behavior, which are critical. It doesn't mention response format or error behavior, but for a simple delete operation with deprecation warnings, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 efficient, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a necessary deprecation note. Minor redundancy between the first two sentences, but overall well-structured and every sentence earns its place.

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 1-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (permanence, deprecation, profile limitation). It could mention expected response codes, but the provided context is adequate for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description 'UUID of the contact to delete'. The description's mention of 'specified UUID' adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the action ('Delete a contact with the specified UUID') and explicitly notes the tool's limitation (falls back to default profile), distinguishing it from the sibling tool reach_deleteAProfileContactV1 that can target a specific profile.

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?

Provides explicit deprecation notice with a concrete alternative endpoint (DELETE /api/reach/v1/profiles/{profileUuid}/contacts/{contactUuid}), and explains the exact limitations (cannot target a profile, only default profile). This is strong when-to-use vs 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.