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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints — it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether related records are affected, whether it errors when the contact is missing, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the verb leading. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient and well-structured.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description omits nearly everything an agent would want: permanence of deletion, failure behavior for unknown identifiers, side effects on related data, and return/confirmation semantics. Annotations cover the safety hints but not the operational consequences.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does partially: it names both contact_id and contact_uuid and signals that either identifier may be used ('or'). It does not state whether at least one is required (required parameters = 0), nor give formats or examples, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 ('Delete a contact') and names the two identifier options it accepts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_customer or delete_lead by the resource it names, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_customer, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. A developer can infer usage from the name, but the description itself provides no routing or when-not-to-use information.

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