delete-contact-folder

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description carries additional behavioral disclosure. It explains that the folder 'typically lands in Deleted Items rather than being permanently removed,' and that the default folder triggers a Graph error. This goes beyond the annotation by detailing the consequence and exception, which is valuable for an agent deciding to call this tool.

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 concise: two sentences and a tip, all tightly packed with relevant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key caveat and workflow hint. No filler words—every sentence earns its place.

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 operation, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (default folder exception, Deleted Items behavior) and the prerequisite (get folder id). It doesn't mention response format, but for a delete operation that's less critical, and the schema already includes parameters for controlling the response (excludeResponse, includeHeaders). Given no output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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%, so all parameters have thorough descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning how to get the contactFolderId via list-contact-folders, which reinforces usage but doesn't expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('contactFolder'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the default folder: 'Delete contactFolder other than the default contactFolder.' It also clarifies what the tool does with 'Deletes a contact folder.' This clearly differentiates from siblings like delete-mail-folder or delete-calendar, and the tip reinforces the scope.

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 provides clear context: it mentions the default folder cannot be deleted and that you should 'Get the folder id via list-contact-folders,' implying a prerequisite workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but gives enough guidance to avoid misuse. It also warns about the error if trying to delete the default folder, which is a useful usage note.

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