Delete Contact

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the deletion is permanent, irreversible ('no undo'), and recommends confirmation via read-contact. This exceeds the baseline 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and existing annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and irreversible consequences. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 the parameter is fully documented. The description adds extra semantic context by specifying that the handle comes from list-contacts or search-contacts and advising read-contact confirmation, which enriches the bare schema description.

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 ('deletes'), resource ('contact'), and scope ('user's address book'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete-event or delete-reminder. The permanence is also communicated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit workflow guidance: use the handle from list-contacts or search-contacts, and confirm with read-contact first. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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