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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by spelling out the concrete effect on quote logging and the credential scope (routing write) and role (owner/admin) required. It stops short of saying whether the deleted contract configuration can be recovered.

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 compact sentences: the action and its effect come first, prerequisites second. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers effect, auth scope, and dashboard roles. The only omission is whether the contract can be re-created or the change undone.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for and it correctly introduces no spurious arguments.

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 ("Remove your workspace's feature contract") and adds the observable consequence (quotes logged without contract labels again). It never names the obvious siblings set_feature_contract/get_feature_contract, so an agent must infer which one re-creates the contract, keeping it below 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?

The description implies when this applies (you no longer want quotes labeled by contract) and lists prerequisites, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as set_feature_contract to restore labeling. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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