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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why that framing is coherent: the deletion is a 'reversible changeset.' It also adds two behavioral facts the annotations do not cover — the optimistic-concurrency version requirement and the invariant that at least one column must survive. Only the recovery path for an ambiguous outcome is left unstated.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and its reversibility, the second carries the concurrency and invariant constraints. The core action is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the key mutation-specific context (version passing, minimum-column invariant). It stops short of mentioning the undo/recovery route or what the changeset receipt contains, which would matter for a destructive-shaped operation.

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 25%: only idempotencyKey is documented in the schema, and sheetId/columnId/expectedColumnVersion carry no in-schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining that the column's entityVersion must be passed, but it uses a different name than the schema's expectedColumnVersion and says nothing about the format or semantics of sheetId/columnId, so the gap is only half closed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one column and its cells'), plus the scope of the mutation ('as one reversible changeset'). This cleanly distinguishes it from row-oriented siblings like sheets_delete_rows and from non-destructive column operations like sheets_rename_column or sheets_archive.

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?

Gives an implicit precondition ('a sheet must retain at least one column') and tells the caller to pass the column's version, which frames when the call is valid. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. archiving, or restoring via sheets_undo) or states when to prefer this over them, so usage is only implied.

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