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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add specifics — it does: content is shifted up/left after removal and edit permission is required. It does not cover edge behavior (out-of-range indices, overlapping indices), which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the distinguishing note, then parameters — a sensible order with no filler. The trailing 'Signature: files_delete_rows_cols(...)' restates what the schema already declares and is the one redundant sentence.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description supplies the remaining essentials (destructive semantics, permission requirement, sibling contrast). Only failure modes for bad indices are absent, a minor gap for a 4-parameter 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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by giving concrete index formats — column letters like ['A','C'] for columns, row numbers like [1,5,10] for rows — which the schema's prose only states abstractly. It adds little for axis (enum is self-documenting) and does not explain file_uuid or the sheet fallback beyond the schema.

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 ('Deletes entire rows or columns from a sheet') plus the resulting side effect (shift up/left). It then explicitly separates itself from the nearest sibling, files_delete, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: removes the row/column entirely, versus files_delete which only clears values. It also names the prerequisite ('Requires edit permission') and documents the call shape, leaving no routing ambiguity among the many files_* siblings.

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