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 danger profile is known without the description. The description adds the 'contracts:write' scope requirement, which is genuinely useful auth context. It stops short of disclosing cascading effects (e.g., linked contract documents/sites) or irreversibility details.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the requirement second. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one missing piece an agent needs: the required scope. The only gap is the absence of any note on downstream effects of deleting a contract versus its child resources.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the UUID format and pattern, so the schema carries the load. 'By ID' in the description adds nothing beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Delete a contract by ID.' The agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as delete_contract_document or delete_contract_site, but the resource noun 'contract' is precise enough to be 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond scope, and no mention of alternatives or the consequences of deleting a contract that has dependent documents/sites. The scope note hints at a requirement but doesn't instruct on usage conditions.

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