delete_contact

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint, and the description goes further by stating that deletion is permanent and disclosing the refusal/error behavior for contacts with attached invoices. This adds valuable failure-mode context beyond the structured hints.

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 focused sentences front-load the action and permanence, then provide the critical caveat about invoices. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 destructive tool with annotations already declaring destructiveness and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the operation, its permanence, and the main rejection condition. No critical context for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents the sole required parameter id at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does not add extra meaning to the id parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Quipu contact permanently') and clearly distinguishes this destructive contact operation from sibling tools like update_contact and delete_invoice. The permanence qualifier adds useful specificity beyond the tool name.

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 usage context: this is the tool for permanently removing a contact. It explicitly states an important when-not case (contacts with invoices cannot be deleted), but it does not name alternatives or tell the agent how to proceed in that situation, such as deleting attached invoices first.

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