delete_api_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the base template is protected, which is a meaningful constraint, but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or requires any special permissions. This is partially transparent but lacks full destructive-operation disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds one important constraint, so every word 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 one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the main purpose and a key restriction, but it lacks details about the parameter's meaning, success/failure behavior, and whether deletion is reversible. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 has one required parameter 'name' with zero description coverage. The tool description does not clarify what the name refers to or how it maps to a contract, leaving the agent to infer that it is the contract identifier. Since the description does not compensate for the schema gap, this is below the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('local OpenAPI contract'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_api_contract, create_api_contract, and update_api_contract. The qualifier 'local' adds scope and prevents ambiguity about whether a remote or stored contract is being removed.

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 implies this tool is for removing a local OpenAPI contract, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or mention exclusions beyond the protected base template. The phrase 'The base template is protected' gives a limited when-not-to-use signal, but no alternatives are named.

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