Delete contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it. It never states whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, whether the contact moves to a trash/recoverable state (as sibling google_gmail_trash implies is a pattern in this API surface), or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation this is a substantial 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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool rather than true conciseness.

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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about irreversibility, error behavior for a bad resourceName, or side effects. An agent has enough to form the call but not enough to judge whether calling it is safe.

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 100% and the schema already documents both `resourceName` (with an example format) and `account`. The description names resourceName but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a contact') and identifies the keying parameter ('by resourceName'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as google_contacts_update or google_contacts_get, relying on the tool name to do that work.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The only hint at context is the schema note that resourceName comes 'from list/search', which is not in the description itself.

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