Delete a contact

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

Beyond the annotations, which already mark this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds valuable behavior: deletion cannot be undone because CardDAV has no trash or version history, and it is ETag-guarded so a stale delete is refused. This meaningfully informs an agent about consequences and safety mechanisms.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, immediately states the permanence consequence, and then explains the safety guard. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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-parameter deletion tool with a full output schema and explicit annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, why it is dangerous, how stale deletes are prevented, and the role of confirm_token via the schema. No critical call-time information is missing.

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 both id and confirm_token are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds contextual behavior around ETag guarding and refusals but does not describe the parameters themselves, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Removes a card,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation as deleting a contact card. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling update/delete tools targeting other entities like groups.

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 by stating it removes a card and emphasizing that deletion is permanent, which signals when to use it. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it against alternatives such as update_contact or delete_group, though the tool name and resource type make the primary use case obvious.

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