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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the soft-delete nature (row hidden but retained), the audit/restore implication, and the need for user confirmation. This goes well beyond the raw schema and gives an agent a reliable picture of side effects and safety expectations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that leads with the core action, then packs the soft-delete nuance and the mandatory confirmation warning into a compact parenthetical and imperative. No wasted words; every clause adds necessary operational detail.

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 simple single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the safety requirement, and the post-delete state. It omits explicit id guidance and any mention of response contents, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the name and noun.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'id' parameter. It indirectly identifies the parameter as a contact id via 'a contact,' but it doesn't explicitly state the format or source of the id. The meaning is strongly implied by the tool name and noun, so this is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a contact,' and immediately clarifies the behavior (hidden from lists but kept for audit/restore). This distinguishes it from cruder interpretations and from sibling tools like contacts_update or addresses_delete, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is the tool for deleting a contact, and it adds an explicit safety condition—confirm with the user unless they explicitly asked to delete. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions that would select another tool, but the verb/noun combination and the confirmation rule provide adequate usage guidance.

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