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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the deletion is soft, the record is retained, and the contact disappears from list_contacts. This goes beyond the annotation's generic destructive flag and clarifies the actual side effect, which is useful for the agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then explains the soft-delete behavior and retention. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: it is a soft delete, the record remains, and the contact is hidden from list_contacts. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further details.

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%: the id parameter is already described as 'The id of the contact to delete, as returned by create_contact or list_contacts.' The description simply says 'by id' without adding further parameter-specific meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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: 'Soft-delete a contact by id'. It specifies the resource (contact) and the mechanism (soft-delete), and distinguishes from hard deletion by noting the record is 'retained rather than permanently erased'. It also mentions the observable effect on list_contacts, making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to remove a contact from list_contacts but preserve the underlying record. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., update_contact or permanent delete) or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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