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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description only needs to add context, and it does: the target must be a trashed contact and admin rights are required. It still does not say what happens to the contact's related data (form responses, conversations, tags) after permanent deletion.

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 tight sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded and no filler. The only structural weakness is that it is written in French while the title and all sibling tools are in English, adding a small comprehension cost.

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 an irreversible destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: the trash precondition and the admin requirement. It is still missing id semantics and any statement of side effects on related records, which matter for a permanent delete.

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 description carries the full burden for the single 'id' parameter, yet it says nothing about the id — whether it is the contact id, the trashed-contact id, or where to obtain it. A single undocumented parameter keeps this above 1, but the gap is real.

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 and resource ('Supprimer définitivement un contact') with a scoping qualifier ('déjà dans la corbeille') that separates it from the many other delete_* and restore_contact siblings. The distinction is implicit rather than naming the alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use: the contact must already be in the trash, plus an 'administration requise' gate. That is real when-to-use context, but it never names restore_contact or bulk_contacts as alternatives, nor states what to do for contacts not yet trashed.

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