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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the optimistic-concurrency guard (matching expectedVersion), the confirmation guard, and the important non-effects (PDF, quote and order are untouched) – exactly the kind of blast-radius detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action plus its guards first, the negative scope second. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers preconditions and non-effects well. It is slightly short of complete because it does not say what the caller experiences on a version mismatch or what 'private' constrains about ownership.

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 schema names the three parameters but explains none of them. The description partially compensates by implying confirmedDelete ('explicit deletion confirmation') and expectedVersion ('a matching version'), but says nothing about the key format or what happens when the version does not match. Partial mapping, not full coverage.

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 (deletes) and a precisely scoped resource (one private saved correspondence draft), then immediately delimits what it does NOT touch (PDF, quote, order). This is distinguishable from postedly_delete_contact and from postedly_save_draft 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?

The description gives clear preconditions for calling it – explicit deletion confirmation plus a matching version – which tells the agent when the call is legitimate. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., save_draft to modify instead of delete), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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