m365_contacts_delete

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which already indicate a mutating, repeatable operation. The description adds valuable nuance that this is a soft delete (moving to Deleted Items) rather than a permanent removal, implying recoverability. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the operation. It is front-loaded with the action and destination.

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 simple delete/move operation with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the essential behavior (move to Deleted Items) and benefits from annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency. It could mention permission requirements or error behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward tool.

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 67%: folderId and parentFolderId have descriptions, but contactId is undocumented. The description itself does not explain any parameters. Since coverage is moderate and the key required parameter (contactId) lacks explanation, the description does not fully compensate. It adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Move a contact to Deleted Items' uses a specific verb ('Move') and identifies the resource ('contact') and the target state ('Deleted Items'). This clearly distinguishes it from permanent deletion or other contact operations like update or list, and avoids tautology.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you want to remove a contact from the active contact list by moving it to Deleted Items. While it doesn't name alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., m365_contacts_update, m365_contacts_create) make the purpose self-evident. No exclusions or edge cases are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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