nworks_contact_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the OAuth scope ('contact') needed for invocation. This complements the annotations, but the description itself doesn't clarify idempotency behavior or error handling.

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, efficient sentences clearly prioritized—stating the action first and important lookup context and auth requirement after. No fluff, yet includes essential information in a scannable format.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with strong annotations, this tool is nearly complete: the annotation set and the description together cover actions, source data, and security. The only minor gap is the lack of clarity on idempotent behavior (e.g., what happens if the contact is already deleted), which some agents might need to know.

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% with a clear parameter description in the input schema. The tool description adds the OAuth scope context, and the parameter description restates the source of contactId as nworks_contact_list. There's no added detail on ID format, example values, or behavior in edge cases beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a contact') and explains how to obtain contactId via nworks_contact_list. The auth scope adds helpful context. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., nworks_contact_get or nworks_contact_update) to distinguish when to choose this over them, but the intent is entirely unambiguous.

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 useful context on where to source the contactId and notes the OAuth scope requirement, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify exclusions (e.g., when the user should use a different tool instead) or what happens for non-existent IDs, though the parameter comment reinforces the source.

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