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

Annotations already mark it destructive, non-read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: exactly what is removed (sources, history, note, tags, reader summary/profile), what is kept (document analytics and share stats), irreversibility, the fact that old activity does not rebuild the contact, that share links keep working, and the confirmation prompt behavior.

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?

It opens with the action and identifier, then front-loads removed-vs-kept before the softer details. It runs about nine sentences, which is long, but nearly each one carries a distinct behavioral fact rather than 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface an agent needs: scope, irreversible consequences, preserved side effects, error semantics (not_found), re-creation path, and the untrusted-content caveat. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirmation workflow ('asks the person to confirm before it acts') that motivates confirm/confirmationToken, and by reaffirming contactId's origin, pushing it above baseline.

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 ('Deletes one contact ... from the workspace's contacts') and pins down the identifier source ('by contactId, from lnkdrp_list_contacts'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lnkdrp_update_contact or lnkdrp_list_contacts without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: it is for removing one contact, notes the not_found case (already deleted or not in the workspace), and points to lnkdrp_add_contact as the path to re-introduce someone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling mutations (e.g. why not update_contact), so it falls just short of the when/when-not bar.

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