wafeq_contacts_destroy

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the explicitly irreversible nature with 'Permanently removes the record.' This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent important context that the action cannot be undone. It does not mention cascading effects or response format, but the core behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 short and front-loaded with the danger indicator, HTTP method, and resource, which is good. However, it repeats the same idea multiple times: 'deletes', 'Delete contact', and 'Endpoint for deleting an existing contact' all convey the same basic purpose. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 simple destructive operation, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, specifies the endpoint, confirms permanence, and the schema provides idempotency guidance. No output schema exists, but none is required for a delete operation. It could mention what happens on a non-existent ID or whether related data is affected, but this is not essential.

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 required 'id' parameter has no description in the schema, but the endpoint path '/contacts/{id}/' and the phrase 'existing contact' make its meaning clear. The 'idempotency_key' parameter is already thoroughly documented in the schema. The description itself adds little parameter-level detail, but the available context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the action ('deletes', 'Delete contact'), the resource ('Contacts'), and the endpoint ('DELETE /contacts/{id}/'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does and clearly differentiates from sibling contact tools like retrieve, update, or create.

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 the tool is for deleting an existing contact, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is clear enough from the verb and resource, but no direct comparison to siblings is provided.

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