Delete Contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required permission (delegated Contacts.ReadWrite) and scope (signed-in user's mailbox contact), which is helpful. However, it does not mention that deletion is irreversible or describe any side effects, which would strengthen transparency for a destructive operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, the permission requirement in the second, and multilingual intents are appended without clutter. Every sentence adds value and the overall length is appropriate for a simple delete operation.

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 required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, for whom, and under what permission. It lacks an explicit irreversibility warning, but for a basic delete operation, the provided information is nearly complete.

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 schema already fully documents contactId with the description 'Contact ID.' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal param-specific meaning beyond confirming the contact belongs to the signed-in user's mailbox, which is a slight enhancement but not substantial.

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 clearly specifies the verb and resource: 'Delete a mailbox contact for the signed-in user.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like contacts_delete_folder by naming 'mailbox contact,' and the included Chinese intents reinforce the intended action.

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 clear context: it targets the signed-in user's mailbox contact and requires delegated Contacts.ReadWrite permission. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately among siblings like contacts_update or contacts_delete_folder.

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