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 materially: it is a hard delete with no undo/history, the linked entities survive, and critically it documents the two-step confirmation flow ('call again with confirm: true'). That confirmation protocol is not derivable from the annotations or schema and prevents an agent from firing a destructive call without user sign-off.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive warning and the confirm protocol, then when-to-use, then an example. Every element is useful, though the example sentence partially restates the 'when to use' rationale rather than adding new information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained; the description covers purpose, destructive semantics, the confirmation handshake, and usage timing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and account_id/contact_id are self-evident uuids, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on the confirm parameter, explaining it is a two-phase safety gate rather than a plain boolean, which the schema's 'Boolean (true/false)' line does not convey.

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 ('Unlink a contact from an account') and immediately disambiguates scope: the contact and account records themselves are kept, only the M2M row goes. An agent can distinguish it from add_account_contact and from delete_record without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' line gives the triggering condition (someone leaves the company or their role ends) plus a concrete example. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for the inverse/replacement case, so it falls just short of a 5.

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