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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the explicit "This is destructive" is largely redundant, but the description earns credit for going beyond them: irreversible loss of all sheet data, an edit-permission requirement, a blocking constraint (last sheet), and the fact that it is applied through the collaboration server (consistent with openWorldHint=true). It does not say what happens if the sheet name doesn't exist or how conflicts are surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive effect and followed by preconditions, so scanning order is sensible. The final signature line is pure filler that repeats the schema and should be dropped.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers impact, permission, and the key blocking rule. The main gap is the undocumented `file_uuid` and no mention of failure behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 only 50%: `sheet` is documented in the schema, but `file_uuid` has no description anywhere. The description briefly implies the operation is scoped to a Tabulya spreadsheet file, but adds no format, lookup, or sourcing detail for the identifier. The trailing "Signature: sheets_delete(file_uuid, sheet)" merely restates the schema and contributes nothing.

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 first sentence names a concrete verb and resource ("Deletes a sheet") and adds scope ("and all its data") plus the owning product (Tabulya spreadsheet). An agent can distinguish it from sheets_rename/sheets_create by name and verb. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with nearby destructive siblings like files_delete or files_table_delete.

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 real preconditions ("Requires edit permission") and a hard guardrail ("The last remaining sheet cannot be deleted"), which is effectively a when-not condition. It never names an alternative tool or states when a different approach (e.g., clearing data instead) should be preferred, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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