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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding cross-resource scope (removes from every list and tag) and irreversibility framing. It stops short of describing what error or response the caller sees, which is a minor remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action, then irreversibility, then the confirmation requirement and sibling alternative. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, how widely, that it is irreversible, and what to do instead.

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 only parameter's description already names its sources (directiq_list_contacts, directiq_get_contact). The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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 (permanently delete), resource (a contact by ID), and scope (removing it from every list and tag). This clearly separates it from directiq_remove_contact_from_list, which the description names explicitly.

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 an explicit when-not ('to only take a contact off one list, use directiq_remove_contact_from_list') plus a required procedural step ('Confirm with the user first'). Nothing is left to inference about which tool to pick.

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