sheets_delete_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of warning about destructiveness. It does convey that the operation deletes a sheet, implying data loss, but does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on dependent formulas. The added 'not name' clarification is useful behavioral guidance beyond the schema.

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 description is a single concise sentence, immediately front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical clarification is compact and useful.

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?

The tool is simple (two required parameters) and has an output schema covering return values, so the description need not explain results. It addresses the main usage trap (ID vs name). Minor gaps include lack of an explicit warning about irreversibility or permission needs, but for a straightforward delete operation, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that sheet_id is a numeric identifier and not a sheet name, which adds value beyond the integer type in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on spreadsheet_id, which remains self-explanatory from its name. Overall, partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a sheet/tab'), and adds a critical differentiator ('by numeric sheet ID, not name') that distinguishes this from other potentially similar operations like sheets_delete_dimension. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'by numeric sheet ID, not name' implicitly instructs the agent on how to correctly specify which sheet to delete, preventing a common mistake. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the clarification provides context for when this tool is appropriate (deleting an entire sheet, not rows/columns).

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