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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain-specific behavior beyond that: issued contracts are retained for archiving and must be terminated rather than deleted, which is exactly the consequence an agent needs to know before calling.

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 short sentences, no filler. The action comes first, the retention constraint and the alternative follow, which is the correct priority order for a destructive 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete: action, excluded case, and alternative are all stated. Minor omissions are what happens to dependent objects (e.g. linked documents) and whether the deletion can be undone.

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 whose schema description coverage is 100% ("Vertrags-ID"), so the schema fully carries the meaning. The description adds no formatting, lookup, or validation guidance for the id, which is the expected baseline here.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource ("Einen Vertragsentwurf löschen") and immediately scopes it: issued contracts are excluded because of retention rules. That sets it apart from the destructive sibling end_contract, though it does not distinguish it from delete_draft.

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?

It gives the critical when-not condition - delivered/issued contracts should not be deleted - and names the correct alternative (end_contract). It stops short of stating the positive trigger (e.g. only for unsent drafts) or any prerequisite permissions.

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