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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important context: it explicitly states 'requires explicit confirmation' and lists the side effect 'deletes contact.' This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the confirmation requirement and the exact effect, giving the agent full awareness of the operation's consequences.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical safety notes. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.

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 simple delete operation with a complete schema, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: the action, the destructive nature, the confirmation requirement, and the side effect. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 (contact_id and confirmation_text) are already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete a contact.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-contact and update-contact. It also explicitly marks the operation as destructive and requiring confirmation, which adds specificity.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to remove a contact) and highlights the need for explicit confirmation. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the tool's name and clear destructive nature make the usage context obvious. It provides adequate guidance without being verbose.

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