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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantially beyond them: deletion is permanent and not undoable, contacts are not notified, unmatched ids land in not_found, and guest lists are unaffected. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded trigger, then constraints, then the sibling exclusion — a sensible order. It is dense with semicolon-joined clauses, but essentially every clause carries unique information, so it stays close to efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed; the description covers trigger, ID source, permanence, notification behavior, unmatched-id handling, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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 single parameter is well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real value by naming the origin of the ids (lemonvite_search_contacts) and the not_found behavior for unmatched ids, which the schema does not state.

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 ('people deleted from their Lemonvite contact list (address book)') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by stating it does not touch invitation guest lists. An agent can differentiate it from lemonvite_remove_guests without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants people deleted...') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('use lemonvite_remove_guests for that'). It also routes the agent to lemonvite_search_contacts as the ID source, so both the when and the from-where are covered.

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