contacts_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful nuance — that the delete is "soft" (implying recoverability) — but does not explain what soft-delete concretely means, whether data is recoverable, or what happens to the contact thereafter.

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 lead phrase is well front-loaded, but the middle sentence is generic template boilerplate that does not earn its place, and the endpoint/gRPC/socket metadata is tertiary detail appended at the end.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations carrying the destructive/open-world profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: it leaves the meaning of "soft-delete" and the contactId semantics undefined.

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 0% for the single required contactId, and the description adds nothing about it. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the total absence of schema-level documentation.

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+resource ("Soft-delete a contact") and the qualifier "soft" usefully distinguishes it from a hard delete and from siblings like contacts_block or contacts_update. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only guidance is generic boilerplate ("Reaches other people... get the user's confirmation first") that reads like framework template text rather than tool-specific when-to-use advice. It never says when to use contacts_delete instead of contacts_block, contacts_update_status, or messages_delete.

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