delete_contacts_by_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement, parameter precedence (query_json ignores record_type), and the preflight_checks behavior. However, it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to related data, or any response format—leaving some behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a permission note, and a clear Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: purpose, permission, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral nuance. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. It lacks some details like potential side effects or explicit comparison to sibling delete tools, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter in the 'Args' section. It adds meaning beyond the schema: query_json is a JSON-encoded advanced query, keyword is comma-separated, record_type has specific allowed values, and preflight_checks verifies editability. This is exactly what the schema lacks.

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 opens with 'Bulk-delete contacts matching an advanced query or keyword list,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this from siblings like delete_contact by emphasizing bulk deletion via query or keywords, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use (bulk delete by query or keywords) and states a prerequisite ('Requires bulk delete permission'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of delete_contact or delete_contacts, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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