Delete contact

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail that the first call is non-writing (a dry-run preview) and that deletion cascades to related deals, follow-ups and activities. That cascade and the two-phase safety mechanism are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive cascade, then the two-step mechanics. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the riskiest fact comes first.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety model, the write semantics, the cascade blast radius, and the return behavior of the preview call. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 only 50% (contact_id is undocumented in the schema), but the description compensates by explaining the confirm_token lifecycle: omitted on the first call, passed from the preview with identical arguments on the second. The pattern/format of contact_id itself remains undocumented.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a contact'), and immediately clarifies the cascade scope ('AND their deals, follow-ups and activities'). This distinguishes it cleanly from delete_deal and the other siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: first call without confirm_token returns only a preview, the agent must show it to the user, and only after approval re-call with identical arguments plus the token. The when-to-call-each-form condition is spelled out with no inference required.

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