outlook_list_contacts_delta

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns tombstones (is_deleted=True) to indicate deletions, has a 'has_more' flag for pagination, and requires draining by passing the returned delta_token. This goes beyond just stating the purpose and covers important operational details.

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 structured with a clear first sentence, usage guidance, and an example. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'typically 10x cheaper') but each part adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides detail. No unnecessary repetition.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: delta token pattern, pagination via has_more, tombstone handling, and relative cost comparison to sibling. It provides a complete picture for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'delta_token' well (from prior response, used for pagination) but does not describe 'page_size' at all, leaving its semantics unclear. The example shows usage but does not explain the page_size parameter's meaning or constraints.

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 states 'List only contact changes since the last call,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (contact changes delta). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'outlook_list_contacts' by noting it is for polling/recurring agents and is cheaper after the first call.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this for polling/recurring agents — typically 10x cheaper than outlook_list_contacts after the first call. Use outlook_list_contacts for one-shot queries.' It also includes an example of the first and subsequent calls, clearly guiding when and how to use the tool.

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