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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger is known. The description adds two pieces of context beyond them: contacts are moved to trash (soft delete), and dependencies/business resources are checked before deletion, implying the call can be blocked. It does not say whether failure is an error or a partial cascade, nor whether non-contact types are permanent.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing coverage rather than a virtue of tight writing.

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 a large type enum, 0% parameter description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: an agent cannot learn the ID format, per-type deletion semantics, or the shape of a dependency-blocked response. The mention of dependency checks and contact-to-trash behavior covers the single most important risk, which keeps it from being inadequate.

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% and the description says nothing about the 'id' or the ~49-value 'type' enum beyond the incidental mention of contacts. The only semantic it adds is that type=contacts yields a trash/soft delete, leaving the other 48 types undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (supprimer) and resource (élément/record), and hints at scope with the parenthetical '(contact : corbeille)'. It does not distinguish itself from the many overlapping siblings (delete_contact_permanently, delete_agent, delete_flow, delete_task, delete_collection), so the agent must infer that this is the generic type+id deletion path.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. '(contact : corbeille)' implies a soft delete for contacts, which is a weak signal against delete_contact_permanently, but nothing tells the agent when to choose this generic tool over the type-specific delete siblings.

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