delete_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: the 'regular' deletion_method errors if relations block deletion, while 'force' deletes despite relations, and cleanup_email_lists removes matching email list entries. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' statement, though it omits permanence or permission details.

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 succinct and well-structured, beginning with a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter delete tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential operational aspects and side effects. An output schema exists, so return value details are not necessary. It is slightly generic regarding error scenarios (e.g., not-found) but the deletion_method explanation covers the main edge case.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: contact_id is the Nimble contact ID, deletion_method behavior is defined for 'regular' and 'force', and cleanup_email_lists clarifies the side effect. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a single contact by ID.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_contacts (plural) and delete_contacts_by_query by emphasizing 'single' and 'by ID.'

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 the appropriate use case through 'single contact by ID,' which contrasts with bulk deletion tools among siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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