Delete a contact

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds critical behavior: the contact moves to Deleted Items, recovery is only via Outlook, Graph returns no body, and deleting an already-gone id yields 404. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the primary action, then cover side effects, response, and error behavior. No redundant phrasing; every sentence contributes value.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the outcome, recoverability, response shape, and failure mode. No output schema exists, but the response is described. It is fully sufficient 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 description coverage is 100% and already specifies the id must come from contacts_list or contacts_search and be the opaque Outlook item id. The description adds nothing beyond that, so it does not improve parameter understanding beyond the schema's baseline.

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 opens with 'Deletes one personal contact,' a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from the other contact tools (list, get, search, create, update). It leaves no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 implies usage context by stating the id must come from contacts_list or contacts_search and clarifying that deletion is permanent within these tools (recoverable only via Outlook). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it's the sole contact-deletion tool among siblings, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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