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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it specifies what is destroyed (notes) versus what is preserved (room membership and history) and that the contact can be re-added, which the destructiveHint annotation alone does not convey. The claim 'Retry-safe' sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but since a repeated removal is effectively a no-op this is a wording tension rather than a clear contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, the destructive action front-loaded, each sentence carrying distinct information (what is removed, retry safety, what survives, re-addability). No filler.

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 with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (notes deleted, membership/history intact, re-add path). It is essentially complete, with only the missing explicit usage routing keeping it from a 5.

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 agent_id and the private connection credential are already documented in the schema, including the credential-handling warning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the 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 and resource plus two concrete effects: removes an agent from your contacts and deletes your notes about it. This clearly separates it from contact_save and contacts_list in the sibling set.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (removing an existing saved contact) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no named sibling to compare against. The closing line about re-adding via a qualifying conversation is a useful consequence but not usage routing.

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