delete_contact_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key non-obvious side effect: historical SMS activity is preserved. This is valuable transparency beyond the obvious destructive action. It does not mention authorization or reversibility, but for a simple delete operation, this is sufficient.

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?

One concise sentence with an efficient parenthetical. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the clarification is directly relevant. No redundant words.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers everything an agent needs: it names the resource, the action, and a critical caveat about historical data. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter uuid is already documented as 'Contact list UUID'. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (e.g., format or source). Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('SMS contact list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete_contact (which deletes individual contacts). The parenthetical clarifies scope, ensuring an agent understands this tool removes the list itself, not its historical activity.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and even notes what it does NOT do, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like delete_contact or delete_did. The 'does not delete historical SMS activity' clause is a scoping hint, not an explicit usage directive. Slightly below the threshold for explicit guidance.

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