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

The description claims the prospect is erased ('efface le prospect') and permanently blocked from re-import, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. An erasure that also persistently blocks future imports is destructive behavior, so the description contradicts the supplied annotation rather than extending it. No other behavior (reversibility, confirmation, permissions) is disclosed.

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?

One short sentence with the effect front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its few words on an erasure claim that conflicts with the annotations instead of on disambiguation or safeguards.

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 mutation tool that permanently blocks a person from being re-imported, the definition omits reversibility, whether a confirmation or special scope is needed, and what the caller gets back (no output schema exists to cover that). Annotations exist but are contradicted, so the description does not fill the gap.

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 — and it says nothing about it. It never clarifies whether the id is a prospect id, contact id, or workspace-scoped identifier, which is the one ambiguity an agent would have 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?

States a specific action on a specific resource: it removes the prospect and blocks any re-import of their profile. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from import_prospects and convert_prospect, though it never names those siblings and the wording is in French while the rest of the tool surface is in English.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: no precondition (e.g. prospect must exist), no routing to alternatives such as delete_contact_permanently or restore_contact, and no warning about when exclusion is inappropriate. The agent must infer the entire decision context from the name alone.

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