delete_contact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО' mostly repeats structured metadata rather than adding new behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, and the destructive nature is at least clearly surfaced, but little is added beyond that.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО' warning is somewhat redundant given the annotation, so it loses one point, but overall it remains appropriately sized.

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 destructive delete tool with two fully described parameters, strong annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks usage guidance, but the annotations cover the destructive behavior adequately.

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%, with clear descriptions for contact_id and confirm. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Удалить' / delete), a precise resource ('дополнительный контакт аккаунта'), and the endpoint reference. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_contact, update_contact, and get_contacts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of cases where deletion is not allowed. The destructive warning is not usage guidance.

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