delete-outlook-contact

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the description isn't required to state that deletion is destructive. However, it adds no extra context—such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on related data—beyond what the annotation provides. It neither contradicts nor enriches the behavioral understanding, earning a baseline score given annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action without extraneous detail, which is appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation. It could never be more concise without losing completeness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It doesn't mention that deletion is permanent, but the annotation covers destructiveHint. It also doesn't explain the confirm gate or ETag behavior, though the schema does. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, it's acceptable but could benefit from one caveat about irreversibility.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly explaining the confirm gate, ETag, contactId, includeHeaders, and excludeResponse. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning—it doesn't even mention them. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic burden and the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 ('a contact'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update-outlook-contact' and 'create-outlook-contact'. The action is unambiguous and the tool name reinforces it, so an agent can easily infer the purpose without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, such as requiring the user's explicit approval for a destructive operation or the confirm gate. There is no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus other contact operations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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