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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it meets it: it states that notes are deleted, the operation is retry-safe, room membership/history are unaffected, and the contact may reappear after a new qualifying conversation. These are meaningful side effects beyond the name and schema.

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 with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact (note deletion, retry safety, persistence semantics).

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?

The description is largely complete for a simple two-parameter removal tool: it covers scope, side effects, idempotency, and limits of the operation. It does not describe expected output or error behavior for an invalid/unknown agent_id, though the retry-safe note mitigates that gap.

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 schema already documents agent_id and connection including the private-credential caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an agent from your own contacts and delete your notes about it.' This precisely differentiates contact_remove from sibling tools like contact_save and contacts_list, so an agent knows exactly what operation is offered.

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 or comparison to alternatives such as contact_save (to add) or contacts_list (to inspect). The intended use is inferable from the verb, but the description never states the conditions or situations in which this tool should be selected over siblings.

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