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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds the non-obvious 'soft delete' nuance, telling the agent the record is not permanently purged. It stops short of saying whether the contact remains visible to vitalli_list_contacts or how linked organizations are affected, so it is useful but not complete.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifier '(soft delete)' placed where it matters. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive mutation the description covers the essential action and the soft-delete semantics, and annotations carry the safety hints. However, with no output schema and no statement of post-condition effects (visibility in lists, effect on organization links, error on missing ID), an agent cannot fully predict the outcome.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter whose name (contactId) and format (uuid v4 pattern) are largely self-explanatory from the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the identifier's origin (e.g., from vitalli_list_contacts) or behavior when an unknown ID is supplied, so the low-coverage compensation is partial.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a contact from the care network'), making the target unambiguous and clearly distinct from vitalli_delete_organization or vitalli_update_contact. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for the non-deletion path, so it lands just short of a 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?

No guidance on when to delete versus update/deactivate a contact, no prerequisites (e.g., must the contact exist, must it be unlinked from an organization first), and no mention of alternatives such as vitalli_update_contact or vitalli_link_contact_to_org. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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