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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the action itself: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related items, or whether confirmation/auth is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but arguably too terse to convey the destructive semantics the caller should be aware of.

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 low-complexity 2-param tool with an output schema (no need to describe return values) and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description is adequate. It leaves only minor gaps around reversibility and cascade behavior.

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%, so both parameters (project_id, interface_contract_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by UUID' mirrors rather than extends 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 (delete) and resource (interface contract) plus the identifier used. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the update/patch siblings, which also mutate a single contract.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., update vs. delete, or how to locate the UUID first). The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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