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

The annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: soft-delete behavior, deletion of company_person relationships, preservation of linked companies, the self-deletion restriction, and the success/failure response shape. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent an accurate model of side effects.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: purpose, explicit when-to-use, required parameter, behavioral side effects, restrictions, and return shape. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, with no unnecessary filler or redundancy that weakens the message.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational context: scope, soft-delete semantics, cascade behavior, non-deletion of companies, self-deletion restriction, and error return shape. The input schema already documents the workspace_id and idempotency_key nuances, so nothing essential is missing from the overall tool definition.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats the already-schema'd required person_id and adds little new parameter-level meaning; workspace_id and idempotency_key are fully explained in the schema itself. The behavioral notes about soft-deleting company_person relationships are context, not parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a person (contact) from the current workspace (soft delete).' It is immediately clear this performs a soft delete on a person/contact, and the explicit behavior around company-person relationships and company preservation distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like well_delete_company and well_delete_invoice.

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 a clear when-to-use rule: 'Use this tool when the user asks to delete, remove, or archive a contact.' It also notes the authenticated user cannot delete their own person record, which is a practical exclusion. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for related cases, such as well_delete_company for companies, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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