Delete a tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: states permanence, the recovery path (version history), and the confirm=true requirement. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to avoid accidental data loss.

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?

Three tight sentences: action + permanence, recovery constraint, and confirmation requirement. Front-loaded with the destructive nature; every clause earns its place.

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 no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: irreversibility, recovery path, and confirmation gating. Nothing essential for safe invocation is missing.

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 rich per-parameter descriptions (title, confirm, spreadsheetId URL parsing), so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description adds the confirm requirement contextually but doesn't exceed what the schema provides.

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: permanently deletes a tab and all its contents. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like clear_range (which empties without deleting) and add_tab/rename_tab.

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?

Explains it is not reversible except via version history, and that explicit user confirmation should be obtained before calling. It implies when to use (intentional removal of entire tabs) but doesn't contrast with clear_range explicitly; that gap is minor given the destructive nature is front-loaded.

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