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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds genuinely new context: this is a soft delete, related history/bookings/deals survive, and permanent erasure happens after 30 days. It does not say whether a repeat call on an already-deleted id errors, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 front-loaded sentence with the destructive action first and the retention nuance in a tight parenthetical. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and for a one-parameter delete the description supplies the key lifecycle facts (soft delete, 30-day retention, what survives). It omits auth requirements and the repeat-call/idempotency behavior, minor gaps given the annotations cover destructiveness.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a row uuid, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it — the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Delete a contact by id') and even narrows the scope with the soft-delete parenthetical. It is clearly distinguishable from create_contact, get_contact and update_contact by verb alone, though it never acknowledges the restore_contact sibling that an agent may actually need.

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 the deletion is recoverable ('until it is erased for good, 30 days later'), which hints an undo path exists, but it never names restore_contact or states when deletion is the right action versus that alternative. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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