delete_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion action but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive/permanent, whether confirmation is required, or what happens to related data. The return value is mentioned ('JSON string with deletion confirmation') but no details about error cases or side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. The Args/Returns structure is clear and efficient, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't warn about permanence, cascading effects, or required permissions. The output schema exists but the description doesn't explain what 'deletion confirmation' contains or how to interpret failures.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'contact_id: The IT Glue contact ID', which adds a bit of context beyond the schema's bare type definition, but it doesn't explain how to obtain the ID or any format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the minimal compensation.

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') and the resource ('from IT Glue'), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_password or delete_document, but the resource is named, so an agent can distinguish it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of consequences (e.g., whether deletion is permanent or cascades). It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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