rdstation_delete_contact

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion but does not mention whether deletion is irreversible, hard or soft, whether associated data is affected, what authentication scopes are required, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action, target resource, and key parameter are all front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the core usage is clear. However, the absence of annotations means the agent is left without expectations about side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. A short caveat or note about deletion consequences would make the description 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 input schema provides only the parameter name contact_id and its type string, with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds that the tool deletes by id, which clarifies that contact_id is the identifier of the contact to remove. However, it does not specify the expected ID format, give an example, or explain error conditions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'contact from RD Station CRM', and the lookup method 'by id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rdstation_get_contact, rdstation_create_contact, and rdstation_update_contact.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the contact needing to exist before deletion. The operation is implied by the tool name and description, but the description does not help the agent choose among contact-related siblings.

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