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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the column's values are deleted, that the first call performs no write/delete/cancel/send, that the token expires in 5 minutes and works once, and that a 'confirm' boolean is ignored. This is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive two-phase operation.

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 two-step confirm_token mechanism is explained three separate times and 'A confirm boolean is ignored' appears twice, so a large share of the text is redundant. The opening is front-loaded and correct, but the body repeats itself instead of adding new 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 destructive mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers authorization, the two-phase flow, the non-writing first call, token lifetime, and a refusal case. What's missing is how name/sheet_id/sheet_number interact to identify the target and what the first call's 'summary' contains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents confirm_token thoroughly (repeat identical args, single use, 5-minute expiry) but says nothing about name, sheet_id, or sheet_number and how they select the target column/sheet. It also references a 'confirm' boolean that does not exist in the schema, which muddies rather than clarifies the parameter set.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Hide a column', removing values in it) and adds a scope limit ('Hiding a catalog variant axis is refused'), which tells an agent exactly what class of column this applies to. It does not name the closest siblings (rename_columns, add_column) to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite ('Requires items.delete') and a hard exclusion (catalog variant axis), which is useful routing information. But the bulk of the text is procedural (how to call twice) rather than when-to-prefer-this-over-alternatives, and no sibling tool is named as the alternative for the refused case.

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