agenthop_forget_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose post-deletion consequences (future invitations rejected, cannot invite by name again), but omits whether the action is reversible, what happens to existing invitations or message history, and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then its consequence. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity leaves room for the missing behavioral context noted above.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally cover reversibility and side effects on related state. It covers the key follow-on effects but leaves those other gaps open.

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 there is only one string parameter ('name'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ('删掉一个联系人' = delete a contact), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like agenthop_decline or agenthop_bye, which also remove a relationship, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance or alternatives are given. Against siblings such as agenthop_decline, agenthop_bye, and agenthop_save_contact, the agent gets no help deciding when forgetting is the right action versus simply declining.

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