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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – notably it omits the two-phase preview-then-confirm workflow enforced by the `confirm` parameter, which is the most important behavioral fact about this tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, though it is arguably too terse for a destructive operation rather than optimally concise.

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, open-world mutation the description should hint at the preview/confirm sequence and consequences. The rich schema descriptions compensate, but an agent relying on the description alone would not know deletion requires confirmation.

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 all three parameters (contact_id, dry_run, confirm) are self-documenting, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb ('Delete') plus resource ('contact') plus the key selector ('by ID'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as update_contact, get_contact, and batch_create_contacts, though the description itself does not call out the neighboring delete_* tools.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_contact, upsert_contact, batch operations) and no prerequisites. The critical guidance about previewing before confirming lives only in the schema, not the description.

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