Permanently delete a contact from iCloud Contacts by contact ID. Use dryRun to preview changes before removal.
Delete a contact from iCloud Contacts permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything | |
| contactId | Yes | Contact ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose irreversibility via 'permanently', which is the most important trait for a destructive operation. However, it says nothing about required permissions, confirmation behavior, or how a missing/invalid contactId is handled.
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 the verb and permanence up front and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only marginally complete: 'permanently' is useful, but it omits whether deletion is recoverable, what errors occur for a nonexistent contactId, and any confirmation flow. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a delete operation.
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 100%, so both contactId and the dryRun safety flag are already documented in the schema, including that dryRun mutates nothing. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (contact in iCloud Contacts) and adds a scope qualifier (permanently). The resource noun cleanly separates it from other delete_* siblings like delete_email, delete_event, and delete_reminder. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with update_contact or any bulk alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated by description text.
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 use this versus update_contact (to scrub fields) or any bulk cleanup path, and no prerequisite stated. The only usage signal is the implied one from the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.