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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description's one added contribution is '(soft delete)', which tells the agent the record is not permanently erased—genuinely beyond what the annotations say. However it omits whether related records (notes, tasks, opportunities) are affected or whether a restore path exists.

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 filler; the most important qualifier (soft delete) is placed at the end but is still within the same sentence. Appropriate size for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 explained. For a destructive operation, though, the definition should say whether the deletion cascades to related entities or is recoverable—the soft-delete hint gestures at recovery but leaves it ambiguous.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'id'. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (delete) and resource (person/contact) in the CRM, and the parenthetical clarifies that 'person' means contact. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete-company-tool by resource, though it does not explicitly route to them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update-people-tool or the other delete-* siblings, and no prerequisites or warnings stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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