m365_contacts_folder_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the hierarchy constraint (top-level vs direct-child) which is useful, but doesn't disclose consequences like permanence, whether folder must be empty, or behavior on failure. This is consistent with annotations and adds moderate value.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded verb. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with 2 params and no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the core needs: what it deletes, the target scope, and destructive nature. Some gaps remain on how 'non-default' is defined and what happens on success/failure, but overall sufficient.

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 provides descriptions for parentFolderId but not folderId (50% coverage). The description's phrase 'direct-child' gives context that parentFolderId is needed for children, reinforcing the schema description, but doesn't clarify folderId format or required semantics beyond its name. With 50% coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'contact folder' and adds scope constraints ('non-default top-level or direct-child'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like contacts_delete (deletes a contact) and folder_update (mutates folder). It clearly states what the tool does.

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 identifies the exact conditions for use: non-default, top-level or direct-child folders. This implies not for default folders or deeper nesting, giving an implicit exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use folder_update for moving/deeper folders', so it is clear context but lacks explicit alternatives.

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