Contacts: Delete Contact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'permanently deletes' line mostly reinforces existing signal. It does add genuine value beyond the structured fields: the required auth header (api-access-token / User API key) and the note that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits are accepted unchanged.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Delete a contact by ID') and keeps supporting detail in short lines. The raw HTTP endpoint line is slightly redundant with the operation, but overall it is efficient and well ordered.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: destructive permanence, auth requirements, and ID formatting. It stops short of stating what happens to dependent contacts or conversations, but is close to complete for this operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id, account_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the digit-format note about IDs and numbers, which is a modest format hint rather than new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete), resource (contact), and key (by ID), immediately distinguishable from siblings like gapify_update_contact, gapify_get_contact, and gapify_create_contact. An agent can identify the correct operation without opening the schema.

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 says what it does but gives no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and never references the parent-account scoping or any alternative. Usage is only implied by the operation name, which is the minimum viable level.

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