Delete contact

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavior beyond them: that event history is destroyed alongside the contact and that the opt-out record is lost so a later import can re-add the person. That downstream consequence is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short labeled blocks, front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, return, and use case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers purpose, exclusions, the return confirmation, and the triggering scenario. No output schema exists, but the return value is described in one line, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional semantics about the identifier, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete one contact and their event history') and scopes it beyond the tool name by noting event history is included. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, plunk_unsubscribe_contact, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly provides a 'Not for' exclusion naming the alternative tool and the reason (deleting loses the opt-out record), plus a 'Use when' condition (data-deletion request). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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