apple_contacts_remove_from_group

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context — that changes persist to Contacts ("saves Contacts changes") and that the contact itself is preserved — though it does not touch error handling (e.g., contact not in group) or auth. The mutation/persistence framing sits fine alongside the destructiveHint.

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: verb+resource first, then two tight clarifying clauses separated by a semicolon. No filler, every clause 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 two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers intent, persistence, and scope (contact preserved). Only edge-case behavior and return-value expectations are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only weakly does: "a contact" and "a group" map to the two self-explanatory names contactId/groupId but no ID format, source, or constraint detail is added. Self-evident parameter names keep this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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+resource (remove a contact from a group) and immediately scopes it by clarifying the contact survives ("without deleting the contact"). This lets an agent distinguish it from a destructive contact delete without opening any schema, which is exactly the disambiguation needed against siblings like apple_contacts_add_to_group and any delete-tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing "without deleting the contact" hints that this is the lighter-weight alternative to contact deletion, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative tool is given. Adequate but leaves routing inference to the agent.

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