outlook_delete_contact

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, what happens if the contact_id does not exist, or whether permissions beyond standard auth are required.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined brevity for a destructive mutation tool.

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 an irreversible-looking destructive operation with no output schema and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description omits the essentials: permanence, error behavior on missing IDs, and where a valid contact_id comes from. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 compensate. 'By ID' is the only clue, and it only confirms that contact_id is an identifier rather than a name or email — a marginal addition over the property name itself. No format, source, or validity constraints are given.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a contact'), which distinguishes it from the many other delete tools among the siblings (delete_message, delete_task, delete_event, delete_folder). It stops short of any framing beyond that, but an agent can identify the operation unambiguously.

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 alternatives such as outlook_update_contact, nor any precondition (e.g., confirm the contact first, verify the ID came from outlook_search_contacts). The agent is left to infer all usage context.

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