Delete a specific sheet from a Google Spreadsheet by providing the spreadsheet ID and the sheet ID to remove.
Delete a sheet from the spreadsheet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sheetId | Yes | The ID of the sheet to delete | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | The ID of the spreadsheet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a destructive operation, the description does not mention irreversibility, data loss, or potential permission requirements. With no annotations to fill this gap, the user is left without critical side-effect information.
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 with no redundancy or unnecessary words. It is exceptionally parsimonious while remaining grammatically correct and clear.
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 description is too minimal to be contextually complete given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not distinguish this action from other sheet-related operations (e.g., delete_rows, delete_columns) nor explain the scope of deletion (entire sheet vs. contents). More detail is needed for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema already provides clear descriptions for spreadsheetId and sheetId, so the description adds no extra semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since parameter coverage is complete in 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?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (sheet from spreadsheet), but it largely paraphrases the tool name without adding new specificity. It is unambiguous but does not elevate beyond the name's inherent meaning.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as deleting rows or columns, or even when not to use it (e.g., if only clearing contents is intended). It lacks any disambiguation among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.