Delete contact

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

The description emphasizes permanence ('cannot be undone'), which adds value beyond the annotations that already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This reinforces the irreversible nature of the operation, which is useful behavioral context.

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 with no redundant wording. The critical information ('Permanently delete', 'destructive', 'cannot be undone') is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential purpose and destructiveness. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema describes contactId fully as 'The contact id to delete' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-related information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and single parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('a contact'), with no ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the target resource explicitly.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_delete_relation or ghl_delete_contact_task. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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