delete_contract

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates destructive scope and the restriction to test/draft states, but does not state permanence, permissions, or what happens if the condition is not met.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the eligibility condition follows immediately, making the description easy to process.

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 single-parameter delete tool without annotations or output schema, this description covers the core object and the key precondition. It leaves out only secondary details such as error handling or side effects, which are less critical for simple deletion.

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 already fully describes contract_id as 'GUID of the contract to be deleted', so the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly names a specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('a contract'), and adds a scope restriction (only test or draft contracts). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling withdraw_contract, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 eligibility condition ('only be deleted if it's a test contract or a draft contract') gives concrete guidance on when this tool can be applied. It stops short of naming an alternative for non-draft/test contracts, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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