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 adds two pieces of context those annotations cannot convey: the write-scope requirement and the fact that the assignment has no standalone id, both of which matter for correct invocation.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: action, prerequisite, identity semantics. The action is front-loaded 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?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers action, auth scope, and identity adequately. It omits what a successful delete returns or whether cascade side effects exist, but those are minor given the annotations.

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%, so both UUID parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining that the (contract_id, site_id) pair is the composite identity of the assignment, which clarifies why no id parameter exists.

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 a contract from a site.' The third sentence clarifies this is a join/assignment record rather than deleting the contract or site itself, which meaningfully separates it from delete_contract and delete_contract_document. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, keeping it from 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?

Gives the required permission scope ('Requires contract_sites:write scope'), which is a useful precondition, but says nothing about when to use this versus alternatives like delete_contract or create_contract_site. Usage context is only implied.

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