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

With annotations already marking this as destructive and not read-only, the description adds substantial context beyond annotations: what is deleted (contact, tasks, timeline activities), what is preserved (deals and revenue history), and that the action cannot be undone. It also explains the safe preview behavior.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then moving to preservation and irreversibility. Every sentence carries useful information for a destructive tool, and the preview instruction ends with clear next-step guidance.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: what is destroyed, what survives, that deletion is irreversible, and how to preview before confirming. Annotations and the schema already handle safety signaling and parameter specifics.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the two-step confirm workflow. The description reinforces the preview behavior but does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a contact') and clarifies the cascade scope by naming tasks and timeline activities while preserving deals. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling deletion tools such as delete_task, but the contact-specific scope makes the target clear.

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 provides clear operational guidance for the confirm parameter: call without confirm to preview what would be removed, then call with confirm to proceed. It does not discuss when to choose deletion versus update_contact or other alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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