Remove a contact

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds important context: the operation is local-only, the contact may reappear if auto-add is enabled, and suggests a mitigation. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining side effects and dependencies.

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 concise with three front-loaded sentences: purpose, scope, and usage note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description covers essential behavioral and usage context. The lack of output schema content is not a major gap given it exists elsewhere. The description sufficiently informs the agent about local scope and auto-add interaction.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'target' parameter. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the tool removes a contact from the local roster ('Drop a contact from the local node's roster'), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is local-only, not affecting other nodes, which differentiates it from distributed operations.

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 provides guidance on when to use and how to achieve a sticky removal by combining with set_auto_add_contacts. It explains the reappearance risk under auto-add mode. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives for removing contacts from all nodes, which may be implied by local-only.

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