deleteContract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'removes all phases, products, and pricing associations'. It also mentions that the host enforces user confirmation via an approval gate, clarifying the identity verification process without requiring the agent to ask the user again.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: first states purpose, then constraints, then destructive behavior, then usage rules, then error handling, and finally confirmation protocol. No redundant or unclear statements.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects for agent invocation: what the tool does, when to use it, side effects, and error handling. However, it does not specify what the tool returns upon success (e.g., confirmation message or deleted object), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for contractId and __userContext. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the precondition that the contract must have status='draft', which is a critical constraint not found in the schema. However, it does not elaborate further on the parameters themselves.

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 'Permanently delete a DRAFT contract' and specifies that it only works on contracts with status='draft'. This explicitly defines the action (delete) and the exact resource (draft contracts), distinguishing it from other delete tools like deleteContact or deleteCustomer, and from other contract operations like pauseContract or expireContract.

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 provides extensive usage guidance: 'Do NOT call on ACTIVE, EXPIRED, or PAUSED contracts', 'NEVER call as automatic recovery from another failed operation', and 'ONLY call when the user explicitly says delete or remove for THIS draft contract'. It also instructs to surface error verbatim for non-destructive failures and notes that the host handles confirmation, so no re-confirmation is needed.

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