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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE, states that authentication is required, reveals the staged-deletion behavior, and discloses the active-domains constraint. It also explains the critical behavior of returning an actionId that must be used with executeConfirmedAction, which is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 compact and front-loaded: destructive warning, key constraint, required parameter, and the confirmation workflow are all delivered in two sentences with no filler. The handoff to executeConfirmedAction is explicitly stated, making the structure highly 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?

For a destructive two-phase tool with no output schema, the description explains the key return value (actionId), the required follow-up step, and the blocking condition. It could add detail about the error behavior when a contact is assigned to active domains or clarify what 'summary' means, but the essential invocation and completion flow is present.

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 only 50%: sessionKey is documented in the schema, but contactId has no schema description. The description only repeats 'Required: contactId (string)', which adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type and required flag. It does not explain what contactId represents, where it comes from, or how it maps to the target contact.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stage deletion of a contact.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling executeConfirmedAction by clarifying that this tool only stages the deletion and returns an actionId for later confirmation.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when a contact needs deletion, and it explicitly instructs calling executeConfirmedAction with the returned actionId if the user approves. It also provides a key exclusion: the contact cannot be deleted if assigned to active domains. It does not mention non-destructive contact alternatives like updateContact or getContact, but the two-phase workflow is well explained.

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