conduyt_forget_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: irreversibility, exact scope of erasure, what is deliberately preserved (suppression/consent tombstones to prevent re-contact), auth requirement enforced server-side, expected latency on large tenants ('tens of seconds'), and retry semantics for a 409. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads 'IRREVERSIBLE' and the scope, then moves through preserved data, undo absence, auth, latency, and retry. Dense but every sentence adds distinct operational information with no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers side effects, preserved data, auth, latency, and the one plausible error path (409 retryable). Nothing material is missing for an agent to call this destructive tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that confirm='FORGET' is a hard safety gate that must not be supplied unless erasure is intended, tying the parameter to intent rather than just format.

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 (GDPR right-to-be-forgotten erasure of a contact) and scopes it ('permanently anonymizes... EVERYWHERE it appears — messages, notes, deals, files, automations, and exports'). It is clearly distinguishable from the neighboring conduyt_delete_contact and conduyt_bulk_delete_contacts, which would otherwise be ambiguous.

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 GDPR framing and 'THERE IS NO UNDO' plus required owner API key and explicit confirm='FORGET' make the conditions for use unambiguous. It stops short of naming the plain-delete sibling as the alternative for non-GDPR removals, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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